Hi Matt, I have some experience with open source licensing and contributed to the group for coming up with the initial licensing scheme. We decided to go with Apache 2.0 because of its friendliness to both commercial and open source efforts. It also offers some good protection against general patents and has a very nice as-is (no warranty) clause for code use and proliferation.
You can find the reasoning and discussion surrounding this on a forum post (this was before the mailing list was setup). http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1736466&forum_id=689820 I also found a very good article on using XML with LGPL (also on the forums) http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200202/msg01411.html Now if you read through all that your head should be spinning so I will try to summarize. The main problem with LGPL (or GPL) is when another project tries to derive something out of it. XML is a very gray area in this. So let's say you were the one to contribute the XSD's and we were going to build our code generators off it then we could have a potential problem. This can still be argued that this is not a derived work but let's just play it safe and say it does. But what you are suggesting is actually the opposite and very much a valid use of the Apache 2.0 license. You are actually using the XSD's as a base library and the nice thing about Apache is that it is compatible with GPL (and derivatives) and even if it wasn't an XSD and plain old code you could still use it. So I don't see any implications with using Apache in your LGPL licensed code. The only thing you need to make sure is that you are preserving all Apache license verbage on the xml file and/or ship a apachelicense.txt file with your code basically copying the license. The guidelines to apply can be found here. I hope that helps and if you have any other questions please let me know. Thanks, Prasith PS: BTW are you considering going to LGPL V3? It is even friendlier with Apache compatibility. Matt Poduska wrote: > I'm curious if anyone can comment on possible issues regarding the conflict > between the licenses applied to the WireShark source and the LLRP toolkit's > llrpdef.xml? It seems to me that the Apache 2.0 license is not compatible > with the GPL v2.0, so including llrpdef.xml in the WireShark source > distribution (for compile-time generation of the LLRP parser validation > structures) could be a problem. > > If I generate source from llrpdef.xml, does that source inherit the Apache > 2.0 license? > > - Matt Poduska > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
