[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [udig-devel] EPL, UDIG and Geotools license
|
I second you about the fact that talking without license background is
just producing entropy for nothing. So I agree to stop on this without
some good base (never met one with good license base until now anyway).
What to say about the green gooey ones... they chase me... they always
chase me... :)
Andrea
Adrian Custer probaly wrote:
> A parting shot,
>
> This discussion is *way* too rooted in here-say to continue as is so
> unless someone can come up with actual quotes from the relevant
> licenses, I will no longer continue the discussion. Furthermore,
> practical analysis of the situation and the aims of the participants
> shows that no one will be at any kind of legal risk by using,
> re-distributing or building on uDig. The holders of copyright on the
> code in uDig: Sun, Eclipse, JTS, GeoAPI, Geotools, Apache ... all appear
> thrilled by the existence of uDig---everyone else is irrelevant to the
> discussion. Finally, until geotools legal issues are settled, I'm not
> getting started on uDig's legal issues other than considering the
> cleanup that will need to happen to document the current legal status.
>
>
> In response to Andrea:
>
> If two elements can both be distributed separately then
> distributing them jointly is purely incidental to the transfer
> mechanism and therefore perfectly legal. I have never seen any
> free software license using language that tries to restrict
> additional contents in a *distribution*. Unless someone can
> point to language that makes this illegal, I will presume no
> such language exists.
>
> *Linking* the two pieces is an issue with some licenses but, at
> least on the LGPL side, that has been explicitly addressed. I
> also presume that the EPL has dealt with this since linking new
> plugins is the whole point of eclipse and its rcp.
>
> *Integrating* different code bases into a single tree and then
> *changing license* is a real issue for most licenses. (The idea
> such a thing could even be possible is a *freedom* that free
> software, BSD especially, gave us.) I don't believe this is
> happening anywhere with uDig code.
>
>
> Regardless, any eventual issues which arose could trivially be worked
> around by distributing only a tiny eclipse and having the user use an
> update site at startup. I would be very surprised to find that such a
> work around were necessary but it will be relatively painless to do
> someday.
>
>
> So that's it from me. If you are afraid, breathe deeply and then start
> running. Run fast! They are right behind you. And they are green, gooey,
> and have big, big teeth. Quick, QUICK! :-)
>
> --Adrian
>
>
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 11:46 +0200, Andrea Antonello wrote:
>>> Warning: This message comes without careful study --- I haven't
>>> even read the page you link to. Still it might help you parse
>>> the situation.
>> Same for me and add that I have problems with understanding licenses :)
>>
>>> "Compatability" can mean a lot of different things. Generally, the
>>> question is whether two bits of code can be integrated and
>>> re-distributed under a single license: e.g. take some BSD code, put it
>>> in your app, and then release your app under the MyLicenseOfTheDay
>>> license.
>>>
>>> uDig "the app" can be viewed as a collection of plugins, each
>>> distributed under their own license. This still restricts what can
>>> happen but without needing the strong compatibility I described above.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, each plugin must be license coherent internally and all
>>> the licenses used by all the plugins must have licenses that allow users
>>> and redistributors to bundle up the plugins jointly.
>>>
>>> The question then is not "Can LGPL and EPL code be merged and released
>>> under only one of the two?", which is what the poster considers and has
>>> as a generally accepted answer "no", but rather
>> QUOTE:
>>> "can I distribute
>>> several programs jointly some of which are EPL and some of which are
>>> LGPL and then can I run an LGPL program using the EPL program?", which
>>> is a much less strict form of compatibility and we believe the answers
>>> to be "yes, of course" and "yes".
>> That is the problem if I got that right. As far as they told me you are
>> not allowed to distribute them jointly. You should distribute the
>> plugins and ask the user to download the EPL part on its own.
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>>> Does that help clarify things?
>>>
>>> --adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
>>> http://udig.refractions.net
>>> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
>> http://udig.refractions.net
>> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
>
>
