RE: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues

["Howard Chu" <hyc@symas.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Langasek [mailto:vorlon@netexpress.net]

> Hi Howard,

Hello there

> As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely
> GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not
> misrepresent
> the origin of the work.  The problem arises if we understand your
> license to require a specific interpretation of "misrepresentation by
> omission".  If your "should" can be understood as a recommendation
> rather than a binding requirement, and you are willing to leave the
> final determination of "misrepresentation by omission" to the
> courts, I
> see no reason why this license couldn't be regarded as GPL-compatible.

Since I'm not a lawyer I seem to be missing where the conflict arises. Having
just read thru the text of the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html I
see nothing in that license that conflicts with these terms. The GPL's
distribution terms require you to distribute source code or make source code
available when you distribute a Program. It's primary concern is ensuring
free access to source code. There is nothing in my license statement that
restricts anyone's ability to distribute source code. Nor is there anything
in the GPL that talks about the documentation that accompanies a Program; as
such I see these issues as completely orthogonal.

> Please note that Debian is more than happy to respect your wishes
> regarding acknowledgement so long as we're distributing your code; the
> issue only comes up because the GPL imposes contradictory requirements
> that could prevent us from shipping LDAP-enabled binaries of many GPL
> applications.

I thank you for your conscientious attention to these matters, but I believe
in this case there is no reason for concern.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support