Le 03/11/10 14:44, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
OK, well what about the version on the UCAR website? Is that MIT-like, or
LGPL? Also, can you even do this? LGPL is copyleft [1], no?
Yes, but we are not allowed to change the licence (except upgrating the version
number in some cases). The LGPL licence on OPeNDAP can not be removed. There is
nothing we can do about that except contact the OPeNDAP owner. In opendap.xml, I
added the MIT licence in addition of the LGPL licence, but thinking again about
it I'm not even sure I'm allowed to do that.
In my understanding, the LGPL licence does not force NetCDF to become LGPL. It
would be the case if the license was GPL. But the "L" in "LGPL" remove the
viral aspect.
I'm not so sure about that. See Apache's take on it, here [2] and here [3].
Seems you are right... In http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html at section
"Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?", there is LGPL 2,
2.1 and 3.
But in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html at section "GPL-Compatible
Free Software Licenses", there is Apache License Version 2.0. Note that Apache
License Version 1.0 and 1.1 are listed in "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses".
I interpret that as meaning that [L]GPL softwares can not be used by Apache
softwares, while Apache softwares can be used by [L]GPL softwares provided that
the licence version numbers are 2 and 3 respectively. But this is only my
interpretation; I don't really know.
Hmm, not sure about that but IANAL. We should check with Apache
legal-discuss [4] and ask.
That would be much better than relying on my interpretation :). Are you
registered to that list?
Yep, agreed. It would be great to get an ASLv2 licensed version of both
OPeNDAP as well as the NetCDF Java library, but that's just my opinion.
In my understanding, the only way to get OPeNDAP licenced under something else
than LGPL is to ask to the OPeNDAP authors...
Yeah that's basically what I did with my mods, except I re-generated the 4.2
artifacts myself from a latest SVN build (and yes I did the *full* build,
and will change it to just the minimal jar build as discussed). Or I can
just take your artfiacts and stage them, but I'm hesitant to do that since
their dependencies aren't available on Central yet. The nice thing about
having the *-all.jar is that at least its dependencies are self-inclusive
and we don't' have the problem that its deps aren't on Central: all of its
deps are included and self-contained.
Yes, but the licencing issue of OpenDap remains... Having separated JAR files
also allow to separate the licensing conditions.
Martin
