Hi David, 2016-04-30 0:17 GMT+02:00 David P. Sanders <[email protected]>: > > > El jueves, 28 de abril de 2016, 16:09:54 (UTC-4), Mosè Giordano escribió: >> >> Hi David, >> >> 2016-04-28 14:10 GMT+02:00 David P. Sanders <[email protected]>: >> > As far as I could see, the original library has an Apache license, so >> > you should be able to use MIT. >> > >> > I believe that you need to include a copy of the original license in >> > your package? >> >> Original code is dual-licensed, in that case the author of derived >> work can choose one of the two licenses or both.[1] I went for LGPL, >> that is weakly protective > > > What is being protected, your own work?
And of the authors of original library. >> but perfectly compatible with MIT "Expat" > > > No, it is only half compatible with MIT, i.e. only in one direction: you can > take code > from my MIT-licensed package (e.g. ValidatedNumerics) and use it in yours, > but I *cannot* > take a piece of code from your package, modify it, and re-use it in mine, > without "infecting" my package with the LGPL code, which will automatically > mean that > I will have to change my license to LGPL. > > (This is all only my understanding. Please do correct me if I am wrong.) No, this isn't correct. You can take an LPGL library and use it in your (even proprietary) program without the need to change the license of your program. What you can't do is to change the license of the LGPLed library itself into a more permissive one, but the library doesn't affect the license of programs making use of it. This is the main difference with GLP. Remember that the first "L" stands for "Lesser" ;-) For this reason, an LGPL library can be used in a MIT program. >> license, which is the most common in Julia ecosystem, so that most of >> Julia package can use this package. > > > Again, they can only *use* it. > I cannot even *look* at your code (which I would very much like to do), > since if I find something useful, I can't reuse it in my (MIT) package. You can have the core of your program with MIT license and still incorporate LGPL code, provided that that part is released under the terms of LGPL. Julia itself has some files with separate licenses, including LGPL: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/LICENSE.md This doesn't affect the rest of the program. >> For the time being I don't plan >> to change the license. > > > I would urge you to reconsider that. You could, for example, license it > with the same dual license as in the original package -- otherwise, you > are actually restricting your users more than the original package does > (for the reasons I discussed above). > > The end result otherwise will be that someone > who needs to use the functionality will end up going back to the original > Fortran code > and rewriting what you have already done (which I certainly do not want to > do), > or using less-good code from somewhere else. Ok, I'll consider using the same dual-license as in the original library (no guarantee), but please note my above comments, they should alleviate your worries ;-) Bye, Mosè
