Hi Steven and Stefan, 2016-05-05 22:29 GMT+02:00 Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]>: > The phrasing of this licensing is unclear but essentially the same as the > original Fortran library: > >> The authors release the source codes associated with the Paper under terms >> of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2 or any later version, or >> under the Apache License, Version 2.0 as well as under a "customary >> scientific license", which implies that if this code was important in the >> scientific process or for the results of your scientific work, we ask for >> the appropriate citation of the Paper (Skowron & Gould 2012). > > > Their wording seems to indicate dual licensing under LGPL 2 or Apache 2, > which would mean that following the terms of either license gives the right > to use the software. But then it throws in the "as well as under a > 'customary scientific license'" clause, which completely muddies the waters. > Does that mean that you may use the software if you follow the terms of LGPL > 2 AND cite them OR follow the terms of Apache 2 AND cite them? Or that you > may use the software if you follow the terms of LGPL 2 OR cite them OR > follow the terms of Apache 2 and cite them? Under the former interpretation, > it would be illegal to use this software as part of a derived work including > any GPL libraries (which includes Julia in its default configuration) since > the "customary scientific license" conflicts with the GPL, thereby making it > impossible to comply with all terms required to be allowed to use the > combined product. > > If the authors intended to require you to follow both the LGPL 2 and Apache > 2 licenses, the situation may be even worse, since, IIRC, those licenses > themselves conflict, so it would be impossible to satisfy the conditions > required to be allowed to use the software at all. > > It seems like it may be necessary to contact the authors and request their > clarification of the terms under which one may use their software.
I confirm I used the same license as the original library. Actually, I interpreted the "customary scientific license" as a request, not as a legal obligation (but I'm not a native English speaker nor a lawyer). The fact that two or more people can't agree on the interpretation shows that probably the license requires clarification, I'll contact the author and ask for it. Bye, Mosè
