Re: [reSIProcate] vocal licence is not gpl compatible
On February 9, 2005 11:33 am, Anatoly Yakovenko wrote:
> I don't know if anyone has bugged you about this yet, but the VOCAL
> licence is not gpl compatible due to the 4th clause in that licence.
>
> * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
> * may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
> * permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
>
> You dont actually need to have that clause in the licence if Vovida
> Networks owns the trademark VOCAL. If you guys really like the VOCAL
> licence is there any chance to duel licencing the library under a more
> GPL happy licence?
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm an ungrateful sob but...
I'm also considering using resiprocate in a GPLd app and would like to know if
this clause can be modified or removed. Looking through the archives, this
issue has come up more than once and at one point it appeared a switch to the
common 3 clause BSDL was considered but never happened. How come?
I think it's obvious given the liberal license of resiprocate that the authors
have nothing against using it with GPL software. Heck, even the repository
itself contains source (unlicensed) that looks like it was intended to use
resiprocate with gaim, a GPL program. Whether or not the current license is
GPL compatable, clause 4 does create unneeded uncertainty. From reading
various threads in the archives I don't get the impression this was intended
but I'm not sure if it is possible to change now due to individual copywrites
etc.
On a similar but minor note, what's the situation with the source in the
SipIMP-Qt directory? All the files there have the vovida license but use the
QT libs. I don't think this is allowed by either the QT/QPL or QT/GPL.
Regards,
~Scott