Hey Matthias, All clear, thanks a lot for the clarifications, I might have went a bit too fast over the compatibility of licenses when I checked it out.
regards, Catalin On 1/28/10, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Catalin, > > > CDDL may/can work: > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > GPL3 is NOT compatible. However, projects that are licensed under GPL3 > can actually now include Apache2 licensed software; > That is the reason why *they* state GPL3 is compatible. > > See here, no the "no-go" section. > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > > Some more info on Apache2 / GPL3: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > Snip: *However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects.* > And it also explains implicit issues, that in worst case the Apache software > (e.g. the demo) would have to be released under GPL3, which is a no-go > => of course > > -Matthias > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Catalin Kormos > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Bernd, >> >> Ok, the problematic code will be removed asap. There is still an >> alternate approach there, which was used first, formatting source code >> with https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/. This can easily replace the JS >> based formatting. Do you see any issues with using jhighlight? we >> don't distribute any code of it, just have a dependency to it. >> >> Sorry for any inconvenience. >> >> regards, >> Catalin >> >> On 1/28/10, Bernd Bohmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi catalin, >>> >>> The apache license and the gnu public license are not compatible from the >>> asf side. It would be safe to remove the gpl code. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Bernd >>> >>> 28.01.2010 13:52 schrieb am "Catalin Kormos" <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi Matthias, >>> >>> This JS library "SyntaxHighlighter" is used to format code, and its >>> license is GNU either version 3 or later: >>> >>> "SyntaxHighlighter is free software: you can redistribute it and/or >>> modify >>> it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published >>> by >>> the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or >>> (at your option) any later version." >>> >>> The apache 2.0 license seems to be compatible with it as shown here: >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL >>> >>> Based on this I was thinking there is no issue with this, if I was >>> wrong we will get rid of commited code which requires that GNU >>> license. So it's for sure a no go? >>> >>> thanks, >>> Catalin >>> >>> On 1/28/10, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I >>> see >>> it this is "only" some... >>> -- >>> ------------ >>> Codebeat >>> www.codebeat.ro >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Codebeat >> www.codebeat.ro >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > -- ------------ Codebeat www.codebeat.ro
