Reading up on it a bit further, it does appear to be a one way
street[1].  That's too bad.  But on the plus side, makes it an easier
decision to just drop McKoi support altogether (versus updating it to
work with the GPLv3'd version).

Thanks,
Chris

[1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/06/29/GPL-Compatible

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Gorissen D. <dirk.goris...@soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
>>Interestingly, I also found that McKoi has switched to GPLv3, which,
>>unlike GPLv2, is compatible with the Apache2 license:
>>http://www.mckoi.com/License.html
>
> To muddy things further:
>
>>However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses 
>>are incompatible in one direction
>>only, and it is a result of ASF's licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' 
>>interpretation of copyright law.
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
> Who to believe? The Apache Foundation or the FSF :)
>
> Cheers
> Dirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwil...@gmail.com [mailto:cwil...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wilper
> Sent: 23 September 2010 17:25
> To: Gorissen D.
> Cc: fedora-commons-users@lists.sourceforge.net; 
> fedora-commons-develop...@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [fcrepo-dev] Fedora, 3rd party licences and commercial use
>
> Dirk,
>
> While updating the license page, I had a look at the source code and
> realized that we are in fact distributing the McKoi JDBC driver for
> people who want to integrate with an existing database.  So I
> clarified the license page to indicate that it's the JDBC driver only,
> and it's optional.
>
> Interestingly, I also found that McKoi has switched to GPLv3, which,
> unlike GPLv2, is compatible with the Apache2 license:
> http://www.mckoi.com/License.html
>
> Regardless, I have created a request to drop McKoi support in future
> versions. See the url below for more detail/reasoning.
>
> https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/FCREPO-804
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Chris Wilper <cwil...@duraspace.org> wrote:
>> Hi Dirk,
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out...this license page clearly needs to be
>> reviewed for accuracy with the latest releases.
>>
>> Generally, we do not include GPL(2) libraries with Fedora due to
>> license incompatibility. Most notably, McKoi is no longer included
>> with Fedora -- we actually switched to Derby as the bundled pure java
>> database option some time ago.  I will get this corrected on the
>> license page shortly.
>>
>> Fedora has been distributed under several open source licenses in the
>> past, but we have finally settled on Apache 2 due to its widespread
>> use (familiarity) and commercial friendliness.  I don't anticipate
>> this will change any time soon.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Gorissen D. <dirk.goris...@soton.ac.uk> 
>> wrote:
>>> Just a quick follow-up,
>>>
>>> Again, I am not a lawyer but from 
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html it seems that the FSF 
>>> considers Apache 2.0 and GPL 2 to be incompatible.  Yet, for example, Mckoi 
>>> (which Fedora uses) is licensed under the GPL 2.0 
>>> (http://www.mckoi.com/Mckoi%20SQL%20Database.html).  The whole derivative 
>>> works issue is very murky and I dislike this licensing business as much as 
>>> the next coder but its just something I noticed.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gorissen D. [mailto:dirk.goris...@soton.ac.uk]
>>> Sent: 21 September 2010 14:46
>>> To: fedora-commons-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> Cc: fedora-commons-develop...@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> Subject: [fcrepo-dev] Fedora, 3rd party licences and commercial use
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have been evaluating the use of Fedora-commons for our project (which may 
>>> eventually include a commercial angle).  I am still very new to the Fedora 
>>> project, so bear with me :)
>>>
>>> When going through the license information on 
>>> http://www.fedora-commons.org/software/licenses  I noticed that the list 
>>> does not seem fully up to date.  For example the websites of apache-batik, 
>>> Jakarta-oro and apache-commons list the license as being Apache 2.0 vs 
>>> Apache 1.1.  Similar for Jersey.  Also, as an aside, some of these 3rd 
>>> party libraries seem to be no longer maintained (eg., Jakarta-oro) or 
>>> superseded (McKoi vs Derby? JMX?).  Finally, the "more info" links return a 
>>> 403 error.
>>>
>>> However, I did not check which versions are actually included in the latest 
>>> Fedora release but maybe it is worth checking if this page is still up to 
>>> date.  I did not manually check everything, but the list of licences I get 
>>> are:
>>>
>>> Apache License 2.0, Apache License 1.1, LGPL 2.1, LGPL 2.0, MIT, public 
>>> domain, dual CDDL 1.0 and GPL 2 with CPE, BSD, CDDL 1.0, CPL  1.0, GPL 2.0, 
>>> OSL 3.0/Apache 2.0, MPL 1.0, Sun binary code
>>>
>>> I am still unsure what all this means from a compatibility/redistribution 
>>> standpoint, but then again I am not a lawyer.  It seems there are some 
>>> commercial routes being explored with Fedora, I would be interested in any 
>>> success stories, tips, or experience.
>>>
>>> If any (major) changes are pending with regard to license policy that would 
>>> also be worth knowing (e.g., following the Duraspace initiative).
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Dirk
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest
Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in  U.S. and Canada
$10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing
Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-users mailing list
Fedora-commons-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users

Reply via email to