Hi,
as far as I understand, if you make any direct API calls to the GPLv3 library,
your code needs to be GPLv3 as well.
It may be possible to dual-license it under the ASL 2.0 and the GPLv3, so that
it can be used under the ASL 2.0 in the case all references to GPLv3 code are
removed. I'd be curious if anybody else considers this a valid approach,
because I'm actually considering to do that dual-license thing with some code
we have that currently links to to GPL-ed libraries.
I do not think it is mandatory to credit UIMA at all. I suppose a mention on
the website for your libraries or possible in the README.txt file of your
project wouldn't hurt. If you are on the scientific side, there are several
papers related to UIMA, e.g. this one
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1030318.1030325
Cheers,
-- Richard
Am 15.10.2012 um 17:42 schrieb Jens Grivolla <[email protected]>
:
> Hi, we wrote a UIMA wrapper for a GPLv3 library and would like to publish it.
>
> Is it possible to publish it under the Apache License 2.0 if we don't
> distribute the GPL library, or does the wrapper have to be published under
> GPLv3? I understand that there's no problem with having it under GPL even
> though it links against UimaCpp.
>
> If we publish it under the GPLv3, how do we have to credit UIMA?
>
> Thanks,
> Jens
