Great – they obviously intended for this to be open source and used, so I'm sure they won't mind clarifying.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Mosè Giordano <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
