Hello all,
unfortunately separating the code is not enough too allow a new license.
At a quick glance i only found only this
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface
And to my knowledge the GPL enforces itself on derived work (incl.
inheritance, use
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
>Martin,
>
>Thanks for this great clarification. I believe in my particular case I
>will have to release the converter code under the GPL, since I will be
>linking directly to JUMP code to do the conversion.
>
>I'll have to consider how important it is to use GPL for othe
I've always used GPL, but never really understood how "viral" it was.
I'll need to think about this some more, and maybe even ask my LUG.
At any rate, I'll be forced to use GPL for anything that touches JUMP
or OpenJUMP code to closely, which will be a lot of stuff.
SS
On 6/21/07, Martin Davis <
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> Does code released under the GPL discourage use and adoption
> in a way that code released under the LGPL does not?
>
>
Yes, I think that GPL discourages some kinds of use (in particular,
commercial use) more than LGPL. The reason for this is the "viral"
problem
Martin,
Thanks for this great clarification. I believe in my particular case I
will have to release the converter code under the GPL, since I will be
linking directly to JUMP code to do the conversion.
I'll have to consider how important it is to use GPL for other code I
write that isn't tied as
I don't think you can develop code that links in GPL code under anything
except GPL. See here:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
LGPL is weaker than GPL, so you can't release an actual plugin class
(which uses the JUMP API's) as LGPL.
However, I think what you can do is p
Paul,
note that 'commercial' is _not_ the opposite of 'free software'!
'Proprietary' or 'non free' is the opposite.
- Sascha
Paul Austin schrieb:
> The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial
> application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be
> allow
I think Paul hit the nail on the head. GeoTools is worried about
including code that can't be included in commercial applications.
I found an interesting article that discusses whether or not you
should use the LGPL or GPL for library code at the link Sascha sent.
The article is here:
http://www.
The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial
application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be
allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL.
I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL ones.
I took another approach fo
just to remind you:
jts = lgpl
jump = gpl
==
sum = no problem ;)
Sascha L. Teichmann schrieb:
> If only GPL and LGPL are involved then there is no problem. see:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>
> - Sascha
>
> Sunburned Surveyor schrieb:
>> I
If only GPL and LGPL are involved then there is no problem. see:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
- Sascha
Sunburned Surveyor schrieb:
> I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a
> converter or pair of converters that would allow develop
I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a
converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the
GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said
that there may be some issues since any code that I write will
necessarily need to utilize JUMP c
12 matches
Mail list logo
