Re: [Jmol-developers] License

[Egon W. <eg...@su...>]

On Tuesday 29 May 2001 17:52, Dan Gezelter wrote:
> > i like to address to license of Jmol. Currently, a lot of files use
> > different licenses:
> >
> >
> > =09=09=09=09GPL=09GPL2=09Simple=09Sun=09Other No
>
> By Simple, you mean the BSD-style license, right?

Dan, the license you use is BSD?

The issue came up when a Debian developer checked my Debian package... He=
 is
willing to sponsor it, when some remaining issues got solved... on of the=
se
was that the "Simple" license excludes certain parties from using Jmol...
i.e. airplain companies... and this is prohibited for Debian packages... =
this
would mean that the Jmol package would go in non-free, which is perfectly
alright btw...

> Given the table you showed, there are a two files that probably should
> not be in Jmol *at all* based on licensing issues:
>
>    TableSorter.java and TableMap.java

Ok. i'll see to it that these two classes get recoded...

> We originally got them out of the Giant Java Tree (gjt.org), and Sun
> uses them in the swing demos.  If you want to go to GPL2, we'll need
> to re-code or replace those routines with similar, but unencumbered,
> code.
>
> > Note that JpegEncoder can be replaced by the SVG library Batik...
> > Which i would like to include anyway, since this format is the web's
> > future... (JChemPaint already uses it, the code just needs to be
> > ported to Jmol...)
>
> We can dump the JpegEncoder if we want to restrict Jmol to JDK1.2,
> which has it's own Jpeg encoding routines.
>
> I'm a fan of modified BSD licenses, because they let companies who may
> be somewhat uncomfortable about using GPLd programs feel much better
> about adopting your code and contributing to the project.  BSD-style
> licenses can also provide for additional clauses that work in academic
> environments (i.e. if you use this code, you must cite this paper).
>
> However, if the consensus is that GPL2 is the way we have to go, then
> I'll donate all of my code under the GPL2.

If we would go GPL2, integration with CDK is possible, otherwise it is no=
t...
(Unless CDK changes license as well...) GPL2 states that software which
is linked with GPL2 software *must* be GPL2 as well... and integration wi=
th
CDK sounds like a rather strong link...

Egon