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
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 01:39, Jody Garnett 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
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
Dear Brad,
Thank you so much for your quick feedback.
You are right, the information of the FSF about license compatibility is
related to the GPL.
However, the situation is pretty much the same since both licenses have the
same copyleft clause
and do not allow further restrictions, see below.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 9:53:08 PM AEDT Christian Raack wrote:
> 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.
I am not sure that this is true. The reference you are
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
