Hi Mark, Asking the Weka people is a good idea! I didn't think about this because the distribution does not contain the Weka library however you are right my library is based on Weka and so I have to clarify that.
Thanks for the advice! Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 3:43 AM > To: Michael Heuer > Cc: biojava-l@biojava.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin > Szugat > Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL > > In Biojava the main code is LGPL and some of our dependencies are Apache > license. This doesn't seem to cause any problem. In your distribution you > can release the biojava jars as LGPL, the dependencies as Apache and > BioWeka as GPL. The only thorny part is code that you write which has > dependency on Weka. This probably needs to be released as GPL under my > understanding of the GPL. > > Under my understanding of IP law (I'm not a lawyer) 99% of licensing is > enforcability. If you release code under reasonable terms how likely is it > that the Weka group will sue you? The remaining 1% is always negotiable. > Why not ask the Weka group how they think it should be distributed? If you > get a letter from them to say you can put an LGPL or Apache license on > your code then your covered. They seem like reasonable people, they're > from New Zealand. It's a small and reasonable nation : ) > > My pseudo-legal advice would be to negotiate this directly with the Weka > group. Then everyone is happy. > > - Mark > > Mark Schreiber > Principal Scientist (Bioinformatics) > > Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases (NITD) > 10 Biopolis Road > #05-01 Chromos > Singapore 138670 > www.nitd.novartis.com > > phone +65 6722 2973 > fax +65 6722 2910 > > > > > > Michael Heuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 09/24/2005 12:12 AM > > > To: Martin Szugat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: biojava-l@biojava.org, (bcc: Mark Schreiber/GP/Novartis) > Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL > > > Hello Martin, > > I think the concern is only in the opposite direction, when an > Apache-licensed library wishes to include a GPL-licensed library as a > dependency. > > As long as you adhere to the conditions of the LGPL for BioJava (include > the text of the LGPL in your distribution) and of the Apache license for > the commons libraries (include the text of the Apache licence and a > NOTICE.txt file in the distribution or a section in your README.txt with > the text "This product includes software developed by The Apache Software > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).") then you are fine. > > michael > > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, 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
