Hi Niklas, EPL1 is one of the licenses labeled as "Category B" and according to <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>:
"Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled" > Absolutely! Both the core clj-rdfa library and clj-rdfa-jena are > licensed under the Eclipse Public License (the same as Clojure). I > hope that's compatible with the Apache license? yes, I'd say :) All the best! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Niklas Lindström <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello! > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> Yes, I'm touch with the author (Niklas), I've pinged him and asked him to >> follow up here. >> >> Steph. >> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1 Jun 2012, at 16:32, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Lewis and all, >>> > >>> > Just checking in on the possibility of using Niklas' RDFa 1.1 compliant >>> > library [1] before the upcoming release of any23. Given that cli-rdfa >>> > already passes all of the official RDFa 1.1 tests, this ought to solve >>> > all >>> > the current issues in the custom RDFa parser that any23 currently uses. >>> > See >>> > [2] for an example. >>> >>> Missed that post; just saw Lewis's followup. >>> >>> Are you in contact with the author? I don't see a License that would >>> permit its inclusion in an Apache project. Though its presence at >>> github suggests the author would probably be happy to see it reused! > > Absolutely! Both the core clj-rdfa library and clj-rdfa-jena are > licensed under the Eclipse Public License (the same as Clojure). I > hope that's compatible with the Apache license? If not I'll gladly > change it (to e.g. MIT), albeit since it requires Clojure to run I > suspect its license has to be compatible anyway for this to fly.. > > (I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK EPL and APL are compatible at least > insofar as EPL-licensed code is allowed to be dynamically linked to by > APL code. I'm less certain about derivative works, there seem be some > patent-related differences.) > > I already had a license statement (in the README.md) for clj-rdfa [1], > which I just now also added to clj-rdfa-jena [2]. > > Best regards, > Niklas > > [1]: https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa#license > [2]: https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa-jena#license
