Mike,

2015-12-03 19:17 GMT+01:00 Mike Gerwitz <[email protected]>:

> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:14:09 +0100, Catonano wrote:
> > Hello people,
> >
> > If this is not the right place, I apologize.
> >
> > I'd like to apply the GPL license to a small clojure project of mine.
> >
> > I know that clojure requires the GPL to mention an exception because the
> > clojure core libraries and runtime are released under the EPL
>
> I asked [email protected] about this in the past (considering the AGPL);
> here's the response I received:
>
>   One easy option for the code you write yourself would be to license it
>   under the AGPL with an extra permission:
>
>     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
>
>   You may also want to review this answer:
>
>     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
>
>   > My end goal is this: I do not necessarily care if other EPL-licensed
>   > Clojure projects have difficulty incorporating my code, but I want
>   other AGPL-
>   > licensed works to be able to include my code freely.
>
>   Because the code that you write would be licensed under the AGPL with an
>   extra (removable) permission, then other AGPL projects will be able to
>   use it without compatibility issues. Of course, they will need to add an
>   extra permission themselves if they also need the EPL-licensed
> components.
>
>   Also, if you make sure that you license your code under "AGPL v3 or
>   later" then future AGPLv4-licensed programs will be able to use your
>   code as well.
>
>   I hope this helps.
>
>   Francois


> --
> Mike Gerwitz
> Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer
> http://mikegerwitz.com
> FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
>

This is basically my case.

For caution I wrote to them too, on Dec 27th, no reply yet.

Is this normal ? Or i can assume that they missed my email or decided not
to handle it for some reason ?

The fsf docs say to include the license text in every file it applies to,
but the github default is to add a single file to the root of the project.
This has me wondering.

Why the indication is different ? Isn' t this a legal standard ?

Also the project includes some csv files that I extracted from some xls
files published by a governmental agency. If I put a single license file at
the top of the project, will it apply to the resources files too ?

Reply via email to