[sr-dev] Licensing for app_* modules
vhernando at systemonenoc.com
Wed Feb 20 01:43:23 CET 2013
GNU GPL FAQ could give us some clues:
Combining work with code released under the GPL part)
Also to be sure we could email FSF.
On 02/18/2013 06:42 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> On 17.02.2013 18:30, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> Hello from North Carolina where SIPit starts tomorrow!
>> Reading through the docs on the app_* modules I wonder how the GPLv2
>> is handled here. By default, GPL is sticky, so any module linked in
>> to Kamailio will be GPL-licensed.
> Wasn't the core changed to BSD some time ago? If the core with the
> module API description is BSD, then I think modules could have non GPL
> licenses too.
If you use a module in kamailio which GPL license, then whole kamailio
shares GPL license, even if core is licensed under BSD one.
>> With app_mono, precompiled binaries are executed within Kamailio, but
>> not "linked in" to the core. The question here is if we have a clear
>> distinction here. If someone developes a Kamailio-based appliance and
>> sells it - would the customer have the right to app_mono modules
>> under the GPL?
> I think as long the the precompiled binary does not need Kamailio
> APIs/headers for compilation the mono app should be GPL-free.
Interpreting some code does not make that code needed to be licensed
under GNU GPL (if you do not use any GPL bindings in your program).
If you mix some GPL code within your code, the whole code should be GPL
>> What about python, java and Lua? I don't think these environments
>> precompile, but they still execute within a GPL environment.
> Same here. If the script does not refer to any GPL licensed API or
> module then it is GPL free.
>> I think we need a clear statement about this in the README, like
>> Asterisk has for AMI/AGI applications.
> With AMI the distinction is much more clearer and easier.
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
More information about the sr-dev