Dear Ian,
I see your standpoint. Frankly spoken, we are fine with both, permissive and
copyleft licenses. However, as long as different licenses are used in the same
program/package they should be compatible.
The advantage of "LGPL-2.1 or any later version" is that we can switch to version 3 of the LGPL that is compatible with Apache-2.0 (see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.en#apache2 which
applies to LGPL-3.0 in the same was as for GPL-3.0 due to the specific provision in sec. 7 GPL-3.0, for further information see https://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd4-rationale.pdf/, page 9).
So the benefit is clarity, its not about being permissive. Stating "LGPL-2.1 or any later version" is more flexibel since you have third party files in your package that say for instance LPGL 3.0 or
that say Apache 2.0. We simply want to use your code as a library linked to our code.
Thanks again to all of you for being so responsive,
we appreciate it very much!
Best
Christian
Am 16.02.23 um 09:30 schrieb Ian Turton:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 01:39, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com
<mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We can discuss this at the next group meeting; can you open a ticket with
details of what is required? The project also welcomes pull-requests if you are
in position to identify the files and
propose the change.
We have also had requests to relicense to apache 2.0; as that meets our
original goal of a permissive license.
Our (i.e. James and I) original goal was not a permissive license but an
explicit share alike license.
Christian, can you explain exactly what the benefits of moving to a later LGPL
license would be for you? what would you like to do with the code that you are
unable to do currently?
Ian
--
Jody Garnett
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:27 AM Christian Raack <ra...@atesio.de
<mailto:ra...@atesio.de>> wrote:
Dear GeoTools-Team,
Is it possible to relicense files packaged with geotools that are
limited to LGPLv2.1
in such a way that they can be used under LGPLv2.1 or later?
Background:
We would like to use geotools by default for our software product, the
atesio-fttx-optimizer
which is a backend optimization platform in the area of planning FTTx
(fiber to the x)
telecommunication networks. We would link it as a java library without
changes to the code.
Your website states that you are using the LGPL license.
Many of the provided files (if a license is explicitly stated in the
file)
are in fact under LGPLv2.1.
More precisely, in some cases you restrict to LGPLv2.1 only as in
org.geotools.data.AllQuery.java (LGPLv2.1-only)
In other cases you allow the use with LGPLv2.1 or any later version
org.opengis.filter.capability.FilterCapabilities.java
(LGPLv2.1-or-later)
In addition, we partially find third party code with licenses such as
- LGPL 3.0
- Apache-2.0
- Public Domain
- WTFPL
- MIT
- BSD-3-Clause
where you add LGPLv2.1-only to the original license, see for instance
org.geotools.xml.impl.DatatypeConverterImpl.java:
/*
* GeoTools - The Open Source Java GIS Toolkit
* http://geotools.org <http://geotools.org>
*
* (C) 2019, Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo)
*
* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License as published by the Free Software Foundation;
* version 2.1 of the License.
*
* This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU
* Lesser General Public License for more details.
*/
/*
* Copyright 2003-2016 The Apache Software Foundation
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions
and
* limitations under the License.
*
*/
This however is not consistent, as Apache 2.0 is not compatible with
LGPLv2.1-only,
see for instance https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.en#apache2
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.en#apache2>.
Notice that in such a case there is no problem when using
LGPLv2.1-or-later instead
("version 2.1 of the License, OR **(at your option) any later
version**") because
there are later versions of the LGPL that are compatible with Apache
2.0.
To avoid any license issues it would be a solution that those files
which are licensed
under "LGPL-2.1-only" are relicensed
** under LGPLv2.1 or later **.
This would ensure compatibility with Apache 2.0 as well as the
alternative licenses above.
Could you relicense the respective files under "LGPLv2.1-or-later" or
would you give us individually
the respective permission?
Yours sincerely,
Christian Raack
--
Dr. Christian Raack
fon +49 (30) 609882232
fax +49 (30) 609882299
atesio GmbH
Bundesallee 89
D-12161 Berlin
Germany
--
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-GT2-Users mailing list
GeoTools-GT2-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:GeoTools-GT2-Users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users>
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-GT2-Users mailing list
GeoTools-GT2-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:GeoTools-GT2-Users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users>
--
Ian Turton
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-GT2-Users mailing list
GeoTools-GT2-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users
