On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Bob Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * I've included the license blocks from the C++ code -- currently > stating GPL, not LGPL.
That is the correct thing to do. > I don't really know how that works when you do a substantial rewrite and > code language translation. Some long time ago I contacted the FSF and asked them about translation GPL-ed code in some language to another language, and they explained to me that a translation must be considered a derivative, so had to be GPL too. This would mean that unless you make the code a clear *plugin*, separating it with the Jmol application via a clear, well-defined plugin API, the whole of Jmol would have to become GPL. > Tim and Geoff, you are willing to let us change that to LGPL for the Java? Unless this would happen... though this would require everyone who every contributed to the code to agree with this, including the authors of the original babel code, so I do not find this likely to happen. It's not up to just Tim and Geoff to make such a decision... A 'plugin' solution could be to make it a Bioclipse plugin... Egon -- ---- http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
