iLBC license issue

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 08:28:04PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:

>> Under the conditions you described, I'd think it is
>> non-distributable if it links to iLBC. iBLC would have to be
>> _removed_.

>>>> http://www.ilbcfreeware.org/documentation/gips_iLBClicense.pdf

>>> Can iLBC be split into a separate package?

>> That wouldn't help for GPLed apps. They cannot link to
>> GPL-incompatible libs.

> Yes, that is understood.

> But can this be done in reverse - i.e:

> - kphone and other apps adopt/use an API for dynamically linking codecs

> - The API (and supporting libs) are licensed under Vocal or similar
> terms, so the GPL applications can use this library/API

> - if someone wants to independently distribute non-GPL codecs, they
> only have to observe the Vocal license conditions and conform to the
> API

But Debian still cannot distribute the two in combination. And the
iBLC code is still non-free, and thus cannot enter Debian.


> I don't believe this approach goes against the spirit of the GPL,
> although if anyone feels that is the case then please feel free to
> comment on it.

I would probably be legally safe, as long as no one:

 - distributes kphone (or other GPL app) and the iBLC codec in
   combination.

 - advocates / advertises the iBLC codec for use with GPL apps.

In other words, it can be thought not to go against the letter of the
GPL and/or to be something that copyright holders of programs _cannot_
legally forbid (that the GPL _cannot_ legally forbid).

But as far as I understand things, the spirit of the GPL is "GPLed
code shall not be distributed linked to or meant to be linked to
non-free code and no non-free code shall be distributed meant to link
with GPLed code". That spirit might not always be legally enforceable,
but that's another point.


So I think it goes against the spirit of the GPL.x


-- 
Lionel