[Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL

[Martin Szugat]

Hi Ross,

Thanks for your reply! I think the point is that is allowed to include the
Apache libraries in a GPL licensed project but not in the other direction.
But I'm not sure :( Nevertheless it helps me in my decision when other
people like you share the same opinion. So thanks again for your detailed
answer!

Best regards

Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: biojava-l-bounces at portal.open-bio.org [mailto:biojava-l-
> bounces at portal.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Ross Gibb
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 5:35 PM
> To: biojava-l at biojava.org
> Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL
> 
> Now you're into the murky realm of software licensing.  The best advice
> is to ask a  lawyer who understands this stuff.  I am NOT a lawyer, so
> if you listen to what I say you do so at your own risk.  I guess the
> first question is what do you want to do with the code?  If you are
> writing an in house application, or something you are not going to
> distribute, you can do what you want with the code.  The GNU license in
> particular gives you freedom as in free speech.  Meaning, you can do
> whatever you want with it as long as you don't distribute it.  As soon
> as you distribute it then there are certain conditions under the GPL
> that you have to adhere to.
> 
> Now for the case where you want to distribute it.  This is my opinion,
> do with it what you like.  Of the GPL, LGPL and the Apache license, the
> GPL is the most restrictive so that's the one you are going to be
> restricted by.  Obviously anything you distribute is going to have to be
> open source.  I am going to assume that you are just using the software
> that you mentioned and have not changed any of it.  In a text file I
> would state what pieces are covered under what license.  For example,
> list the jar files and what license they are covered by and include the
> text of the license(s).  Now the tricky part, what kind of license does
> your project get as a whole?  I would say the GPL.  The Apache license
> is very flexible, much more so than the GPL, and the Apache site
> believes they are compatible with the GPL, so I think it is safe to
> place the project as a whole under the GPL.  You are not changing the
> Apache license because someone could look at your documentation see what
> piece of Apache you used and go and download it independently from Apache.
> 
> The real answer is that none of these licenses have been throughly
> tested in court (precedence) and it really depends on what you want to
> do with it.  Therefore, any advice you get is going to be at some level
> speculation.  Your best bet is to follow what other reputable software
> is doing.
> 
> Ross
> 
> Martin Szugat wrote:
> 
> >Hi!
> >
> >I'm using BioJava with my BioWeka project (www.bioweka.org). I'd like to
> >create a distribution with BioWeka (GPL), BioJava (LGPL) and the Apache
> >Commons libraries (Apache license) which are required by BioJava. However
> >there seems to be an incompatibility between the GPL/LGPL and the Apache
> >license:
> >
> >http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/18/215242&tid=117&tid=185
> &ti
> >d=17&tid=2
> >
> >But the Apache foundation says the licenses are compatible:
> >
> >http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL
> >
> >So I'm a little bit confused if I'm allowed to package all libraries in
> the
> >same distribution. Maybe someone can clarify that. I already contacted
> the
> >Apache foundation but didn't get an answer, yet.
> >
> >Best regards
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Biojava-l mailing list  -  Biojava-l at biojava.org
> >http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Biojava-l mailing list  -  Biojava-l at biojava.org
> http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l