Re: licencing and modules

Joe Cooper wrote:
>
> > Is there any mechanism that can be put in place to ensure that all
> > libraries/modules that squid can load will have to be GPL'd as well?
>
> I think the only option to prevent this would be for Duane to modify the
> license, or place an addendum to the license (Duane is still the
> copyright holder, correct?). I suspect it would only require a one or
> two line addendum. Does the newest version of the GPL address this? I
> seem to recall it had evolved a bit in this direction recently.

Duane is not and has never been the Copyright holder.

   This software product, SQUID, is developed by a team of
   individuals, and copyrighted (C) 2001 by the Regents of the
   University of California, with all rights reserved. UCSD
   administered the NLANR Cache grants, NCR 9616602 and NCR
   9521745 under which most of this code was developed.

And quite large parts of the code is under other copyrights.

> This is definitely a concern that should be taken seriously, as the
> number of closed source drivers for the Linux kernel can attest. In
> this case, the problem is much larger, in that a company could add a
> number of proprietary modules to Squid--thus leveraging the quite large
> and impressive codebase of Squid without giving back to the project.

Well, it depends on how you reason. In many cases the reasons why the
drivers are closed are because of a closed company hierarchy, not
allowing the developers to release the source.

I prefer to have a closed driver than no driver at all, but at the same
time it is a hassle which sereverely limits the usefullness of the item
the driver is for as the binary-only driver usually only works in a few
specific kernel versions..

> Then again...Is this a problem in other GPL projects? I would guess
> there are other modular projects out there, other than the kernel. What
> do they do about this issue?

Not much I think. I is usually not a problem.

> Of course...if the module has to link in a number of other Squid parts,
> like libs, to connect to the rest of Squid...which I would guess it
> would...this might moot, as the libs are all GPL'ed and not LGPL'ed.

True. They would not be able to use any parts of Squid or other GPL
libraries in their code.

The issue with propriatiary modules already exists. Anyone who wants to
add a propritary module to Squid only needs to write the interface
(which usually isn't very much for a isolated task) and publish the
interface specification and Squid implementation.. There is atleast one
company who have done this in Squid already, with a positive impact for
Squid as it broadens the scope where Squid is a possible choice. (the
function provided by this company is also supported by most other
caching/proxy products, so not having support for Squid would be very
negative for Squid). I'll leave it to you to figure out which company I
am talking about.

/ Henrik
Received on Fri Apr 20 2001 - 02:23:26 MDT