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