Re: License questions part 2: Interop issues?

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

I don't agree with the assertion that the Mono cases don't apply to us due to the fact that "linking" is not used in the same sense in Mono-type applications as in C or even Perl.  Even if it were, the only people who draw such a line are the FSF (and it is not in the license, just the FAQ). (Does anyone seriously think that the closed source nVidia drivers for Linux violate the GPL?)

My knowledge of the ECMA standards, while somewhat old and possibly wrong, suggests that Mono and .Net components are no more "linked" together in the classical sense than are Plpgsql stored procs which call eachother.

However, there is a way out for people doing integration work.  Integration components could be written by anyone provided that they offer a superset of the permissions granted under the GPL, IMHO (IANAL, TINLA, etc).  Hence no license changes may be necessary.  However, this may or may not restrict whether people can bundle LedgerSMB with both other incompatibly licensed systems *and* integration components because this may raise questions as to the nature of "work as a whole."

While I would rather see at least a set of integration points we define as "safe" I would acknowledge that integration can be done without it.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers