Andrew Stevens wrote:
From: Helma van der Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:31:25 +0100
Guys,
I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to
know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up
of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another
(sub)project is licensed under BSD.
This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their
part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they
included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all
external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in
the various files.
Is this correct?
Given that GNU [1] list the Apache licenses as "GPL-Incompatible, Free
Software Licenses", I've always interpreted that to mean that you can't
link to (i.e. make use of) Apache-licensed libraries (jars) in a project
that you're releasing under the GPL. They don't appear to have an
equivalent list for LGPL compatibility, unfortunately.
I do recall that previous discussions on this list have stated that
Apache-hosted projects aren't allowed to [L]GPL libraries in their CVS
repositories.
If I've got this all backwards, someone please let me know; I've a
project of my own [2] that I would have licensed under GPL if not for
the fact that I made use of libraries that were released under Apache
and BSD licenses. Instead I went for LGPL on the grounds that I can
find a lot of other LGPL'd projects that use the same libraries, so it
looks like that's okay...
FYI, LGPL is incompatible with the Apache License as much as the GPL, so
the exact same reasoning applies.
--
Stefano.
- Re: (Re)Licensing question Stefano Mazzocchi
-
