Hi Dennis,
Great, thanks. It would be great if we could license that under ASLv2, here:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
Cheers,
Chris
On 11/3/10 12:23 PM, "Dennis Heimbigner" <dmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have sent a request to Gallagher to see if
he would be willing to relicense java opendap
under the appropriate Apache Licence.
Which Apache license would be the one to use?
=Dennis Heimbigner
Unidata
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> netcdf-java mailing list
> netcdf-java@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
