Adrian Custer a écrit : > Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPL v2.0. Indeed, a major motivation > of GPLv3.0 was to allow the integration of Apache and GNU code. GPLv3 is > compatible with Apache 2.0. Unfortunately, I don't remember any of the > details so I don't know how this affects the LGPL v2.0.
Takling about that, I would like to bring a question that I wanted to ask for ages but didn't dared up to date. Before we switched to OSGEO, our licensing terms was saying that GeoTools is licensed under "either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.". In the move to OSGEO we dropped the "(at your option) any later version" part. At that time I was neutral. Today I feed that it may have been unfortunate. Would people agree to reinsert the "(at your option) any later version" sentence in the copyright statement? The goal is to get the freedom to move to LGPL version 3 for those who wish (and to be sincere, it would be my wish for geotidy). Compatibility with the Apache licence is one reason. An other one is that in the place where we work, the legal staff from the public French government are examining LGPL v3, not 2, for deciding what to do with free software. LGPL v3 is explicitly defined as GPL v3 with the "viral" section removed, while LGPL v2 was defined as a totally independent licence from GPL 2. So (in my understanding) if lawyer studies GPL v2, it said nothing about LGPL v2, while if they study GPL v3 part of their work applied to LGPL v3 too. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel