shypike wrote:In my opinion, the SMPL skin is not a "Derivative Work" of excanvas.js, since
we have it in its original separate file, so the term "remain separable from" is valid.
There are no "editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications" at all.
I agree, and never claimed otherwise. But the license you are quoting here is the Apache license 2.0, whereas the problem lies on the side of the GPL. For example in GPL v2 section 2(b):
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
Now, "work that you distribute or publish
" (meaning the sabnzbd+ release tarball), containing the "Program or any part thereof
" (that's the GPL v2-only licensed sabnzbd python files) must be licensed as a whole
[...] under the terms of this License
(=GPL v2). You can see how this is very different from the Apache License which applies itself only to "its own files", and how this includes all files in the release tarball, incl excanvas.
Next, sections 6 and 7 come into play:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. [...]
A license such as the Apache v2.0 insisting on adding, as the FSF calls it, "certain patent termination and indemnification provisions", breaches the requirement as set in section 6 of not imposing additional restrictions, thus invoking section 7 and forbidding distribution whenever anyone wants to use their rights under section 2.
shypike wrote:The SABnzbd distribution is a collection of FOSS packages each with its own
licensing, all carefully documented (thanks to your efforts).
That's in sharp contrast to what you said earlier in the discussion following the include statements stuff. And even then, in 2(b) merely "containing" GPL v2 licensed stuff suffices. I think that chair throwing microsoft guy called it "a cancer" or something along these lines
shypike wrote:BTW, SMPL comes with its own CC3.0 license.
Given that you have chosen to create separate packages for the skins, you need only
to look at compatibility between CC3.0 and Apache.
So, your idea of breaking the package up might turn out to be a good idea after all.
While breaking the release up might at least theorethically be an option for the project, it isn't going saving my rear end. Whilst the binary packages are indeed split, the source package is also distributed. Included in that comes the original release as-is + packaging and patches...
Just curious, what's the big issue with "v2 or later" prompting this change in the first place?