bzip2 and bzip3 licence incompatibility
rjc opened this issue · comments
Hello,
Both in About, as well as the README, you use the phrase:
[...] successor to BZip2
Further down in the README, you write:
Like its ancestor, BZip3 [...]
Coupled with its name (bzip3), I don't think it is a too far-fetched an assumtion to make that you're viewing bzip3 as a replacement for bzip2, at least at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, bzip3 will never be able to replace bzip2 everywhere where the latter is currently being used if their licence incompatibility issue isn't resolved first. You had chosen a viral copyleft licence for bzip3 (GPLv3), whereas bzip2 is distributed under the terms of its own BSD-like licence, which allows the latter (both the source code and the binary) to be included in many more places than the former.
Is there any chance this can be resolved before bzip3 becomes more popular?
Thank you.
Hi!
To be more precise, bzip3 claims to be more of a spiritual successor to bzip2. A small bit of the context is that what bzip3 aims to be is a replacement for bzip2 on modern hardware. what used to not be viable decades ago (arithmetic coding, context mixing, SAIS algorithms for BWT construction) became viable nowadays, as CPU Frequencies don't tend to change, while cache and RAM keep getting bigger and faster.
Coupled with its name (bzip3), I don't think it is a too far-fetched an assumtion to make that you're viewing bzip3 as a replacement for bzip2, at least at some point in the future.
To a degree, yes.
Unfortunately, bzip3 will never be able to replace bzip2 everywhere where the latter is currently being used if their licence incompatibility issue isn't resolved first. You had chosen a viral copyleft licence for bzip3 (GPLv3), whereas bzip2 is distributed under the terms of its own BSD-like licence, which allows the latter (both the source code and the binary) to be included in many more places than the former.
I see the issue, and I am planning to relicense the project to the less restrictive LGPLv3.
Thanks for the feedback.
For anyone finding this issue in the future, for reference, bzip2's licence is not compatible with any BSD licence (Due to clause 4), any GPL licence (Due to an allowance of binary reproduction without source code), and is only compatible with the MIT/X11 licences as far as I can tell.
In other words, it's a really weird licence, and realistically, it's an improvement to relicence it to something less esoteric.
A word of clarification:
For anyone finding this issue in the future, for reference, bzip2's licence is not compatible with any BSD licence (Due to clause 4), [...]
Well, bzip2 licence is a BSD[Edit: -like] licence, it is [Edit: similar/based on] the BSD licence, as in the original one - [Edit: it's] called a 4-clause BSD license (to use the US spelling).
[...] any GPL licence (Due to an allowance of binary reproduction without source code), and is only compatible with the MIT/X11 licences as far as I can tell.
This is obviously not true as all other permissive licences allow for binary redistribution without souce code - the incompatibility with the GPL is simply due to aforementioned advertising clause.
In other words, it's a really weird licence, and realistically, it's an improvement to relicence it to something less esoteric.
Again, not weird at all - it is like most liberal licences, but simply has the contentious advertising clause.
I presume it was all well-meaning but, in the future, I'd suggest doing some homework beforehand :^)
Either way, yes - it would be best to-relicense bzip2 using one of the permissive licences, i.e. one of the BSD ones, ISC, MIT, etc.
Edit: bzip2 licence is not the 4-clause BSD licence but one very similar and/or based on it.
Apologies about the mistake with the BSD licences; I was referring to modern 2/3BSD licences, and I should have said as much.
As for the GPL, I got the directions confused; when saying it was not compatible with the GPL, I should have said the GPL is not compatible with it, for the reason above.
Lastly, the licence used by bzip2 is not, infact, the BSD4 - only the 1st and 4th clauses are the same.
To add to this, the BZIP2 licence doesn't even have an advertising clause - it instead has a clause requring quote "specific prior written permission." to use the authors name to promote the product.
I was using the advertising permission clause as the reason it was "weird" - I have never seen a similar clause in any other licence.
The lesson here is don't read legal documents quickly, and I think it applies to both of us.
Lastly, the licence used by bzip2 is not, infact, the BSD4 - only the 1st and 4th clauses are the same.
That's correct - I've edited my comment above to reflect the fact.
The lesson here is don't read legal documents quickly, and I think it applies to both of us.
True that! :^P
Closing as the software has been relicensed as lgpl.