[asterisk-users] Licensing question.

[A J Stiles]

On Wednesday 09 November 2011, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 04:37 AM, I wrote:
> > What you *can't* do is distribute your modules *as pre-compiled binaries*
> > under any licence beside the GPL -- if they are distributed under any
> > other licence, they *must* be compiled on-site by the end user.
> 
> This is not true. Distribution in source or binary form makes no
> difference; if you produce an Asterisk module (that falls under the
> 'derivative work' classification), whether you distribute it in source
> or binary form you must distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2
> unless you have been granted explicit permission to do otherwise.

But so long as you were careful not to copy any of the code you are going to 
link against into your Source Code  (and why would you, if you were linking 
against it?),  it only *becomes* a derivative work *after* it has been 
compiled.  The Source Code for your module is your own independent work  (even 
although it may well be useless without Asterisk)  and therefore subject to 
your own choice of licence.

Once it's compiled, the binary contains Asterisk code and so *is* a derivative 
work.  It now falls under a combined licence, and thereafter you can *only* 
distribute it in accordance with the terms of *both* licences.  This is where 
you risk running afoul of clause 6, no additional restrictions.  But as long 
as you acquired the Asterisk Source Code legitimately, the GPL does not 
restrict you *using* it  (that's a statutory right)  -- only *distributing* it  
(which is a reserved right).

> Of course, as I said in my original reply, anyone who has plans to
> distribute Asterisk-derived works and wishes to do us under any license
> other than the GPLv2 would be wise to consult legal counsel in their
> area to learn how the license affects their plans.

Agreed.

If everybody just used the GPL, there wouldn't be any problems with licensing.

-- 
AJS

Answers come *after* questions.