Hi Ross, Thanks for your reply! I think the point is that is allowed to include the Apache libraries in a GPL licensed project but not in the other direction. But I'm not sure :( Nevertheless it helps me in my decision when other people like you share the same opinion. So thanks again for your detailed answer!
Best regards Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:biojava-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Gibb > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 5:35 PM > To: biojava-l@biojava.org > Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL > > Now you're into the murky realm of software licensing. The best advice > is to ask a lawyer who understands this stuff. I am NOT a lawyer, so > if you listen to what I say you do so at your own risk. I guess the > first question is what do you want to do with the code? If you are > writing an in house application, or something you are not going to > distribute, you can do what you want with the code. The GNU license in > particular gives you freedom as in free speech. Meaning, you can do > whatever you want with it as long as you don't distribute it. As soon > as you distribute it then there are certain conditions under the GPL > that you have to adhere to. > > Now for the case where you want to distribute it. This is my opinion, > do with it what you like. Of the GPL, LGPL and the Apache license, the > GPL is the most restrictive so that's the one you are going to be > restricted by. Obviously anything you distribute is going to have to be > open source. I am going to assume that you are just using the software > that you mentioned and have not changed any of it. In a text file I > would state what pieces are covered under what license. For example, > list the jar files and what license they are covered by and include the > text of the license(s). Now the tricky part, what kind of license does > your project get as a whole? I would say the GPL. The Apache license > is very flexible, much more so than the GPL, and the Apache site > believes they are compatible with the GPL, so I think it is safe to > place the project as a whole under the GPL. You are not changing the > Apache license because someone could look at your documentation see what > piece of Apache you used and go and download it independently from Apache. > > The real answer is that none of these licenses have been throughly > tested in court (precedence) and it really depends on what you want to > do with it. Therefore, any advice you get is going to be at some level > speculation. Your best bet is to follow what other reputable software > is doing. > > Ross > > Martin Szugat wrote: > > >Hi! > > > >I'm using BioJava with my BioWeka project (www.bioweka.org). I'd like to > >create a distribution with BioWeka (GPL), BioJava (LGPL) and the Apache > >Commons libraries (Apache license) which are required by BioJava. However > >there seems to be an incompatibility between the GPL/LGPL and the Apache > >license: > > > >http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/18/215242&tid=117&tid=185 > &ti > >d=17&tid=2 > > > >But the Apache foundation says the licenses are compatible: > > > >http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL > > > >So I'm a little bit confused if I'm allowed to package all libraries in > the > >same distribution. Maybe someone can clarify that. I already contacted > the > >Apache foundation but didn't get an answer, yet. > > > >Best regards > > > >Martin > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Biojava-l mailing list - Biojava-l@biojava.org > >http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Biojava-l mailing list - Biojava-l@biojava.org > http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - Biojava-l@biojava.org http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
