views:

354

answers:

2

I was wondering if source code released under the Code Project Open License is GPL compatible?

+4  A: 

No.

Section 5.d of the Code Project Open License:

You agree not to sell, lease, or rent any part of the Work. This does not restrict you from including the Work or any part of the Work inside a larger software distribution that itself is being sold. The Work by itself, though, cannot be sold, leased or rented.

Excerpts from the GPLv2 (only because I'm more familiar with where to find things in the GPLv2 than v3):

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

and

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.

and

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.

Brian Campbell
+2  A: 

Wow - bizarre license of the month! How about this:

You agree not to use the Work for illegal, immoral or improper purposes, or on pages containing illegal, immoral or improper material. The Work is subject to applicable export laws. You agree to comply with all such laws and regulations that may apply to the Work after Your receipt of the Work.

So Dr. Evil will have to look somewhere else...

It seems like this is a license to be avoided at all costs, and I'd avoid using software licensed with it too.

anon
Yeah, I actually found some code under this license recently, and took a look at it to see if it was anything like a reasonable free software license. I was pretty disappointed.
Brian Campbell
Wow. What would have been wrong with them using an Apache 2.0 license or the Eclipse license if they wanted to be "commercial friendly"?
Scott Whitlock