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
