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

[Martin Szugat]

Hi Mark,

Asking the Weka people is a good idea! I didn't think about this because the
distribution does not contain the Weka library however you are right my
library is based on Weka and so I have to clarify that.

Thanks for the advice!

Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mark.schreiber at novartis.com [mailto:mark.schreiber at novartis.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 3:43 AM
> To: Michael Heuer
> Cc: biojava-l at biojava.org; biojava-l-bounces at portal.open-bio.org; Martin
> Szugat
> Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL
> 
> In Biojava the main code is LGPL and some of our dependencies are Apache
> license. This doesn't seem to cause any problem. In your distribution you
> can release the biojava jars as LGPL, the dependencies as Apache and
> BioWeka as GPL. The only thorny part is code that you write which has
> dependency on Weka. This probably needs to be released as GPL under my
> understanding of the GPL.
> 
> Under my understanding of IP law (I'm not a lawyer) 99% of licensing is
> enforcability. If you release code under reasonable terms how likely is it
> that the Weka group will sue you? The remaining 1% is always negotiable.
> Why not ask the Weka group how they think it should be distributed? If you
> get a letter from them to say you can put an LGPL or Apache license on
> your code then your covered. They seem like reasonable people, they're
> from New Zealand. It's a small and reasonable nation : )
> 
> My pseudo-legal advice would be to negotiate this directly with the Weka
> group. Then everyone is happy.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Mark Schreiber
> Principal Scientist (Bioinformatics)
> 
> Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases (NITD)
> 10 Biopolis Road
> #05-01 Chromos
> Singapore 138670
> www.nitd.novartis.com
> 
> phone +65 6722 2973
> fax  +65 6722 2910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Heuer <heuermh at acm.org>
> Sent by: biojava-l-bounces at portal.open-bio.org
> 09/24/2005 12:12 AM
> 
> 
>         To:     Martin Szugat <Martin.Szugat at gmx.net>
>         cc:     biojava-l at biojava.org, (bcc: Mark Schreiber/GP/Novartis)
>         Subject:        Re: [Biojava-l] Apache License vs. (L)GPL
> 
> 
> Hello Martin,
> 
> I think the concern is only in the opposite direction, when an
> Apache-licensed library wishes to include a GPL-licensed library as a
> dependency.
> 
> As long as you adhere to the conditions of the LGPL for BioJava (include
> the text of the LGPL in your distribution) and of the Apache license for
> the commons libraries (include the text of the Apache licence and a
> NOTICE.txt file in the distribution or a section in your README.txt with
> the text "This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).") then you are fine.
> 
>    michael
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, 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
>