tinytim-discuss

[tinyTiM-discuss] Apache License for tinyTiM?

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi all,

I am currently faced with the problem that I'd like to use / import a
lib which is licensed under the Apache License 2 (ALv2) [1].

I tried to find out if I can use a lib under the ALv2 in a
LGPL product (namely tinyTiM), but cannot find a reliable source. I
believe it's okay to use a lib under the ALv2, but I am not
sure. GPL3 is compatible to ALv2, but all sources are silent about
LGPL (2/3).

To cut a long story short, I wonder if we should move to the ALv2.

If someone finds a reliable source that it is okay to use an ALv2 lib
within a LGPL lib, it would be okay for me, if tinyTiM stays under the
LGPL.

Thoughts?

[1] <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Apache License for tinyTiM?

[Stefan L. <li...@ap...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Im not very into this licensing stuff. but i googled and found that apache v2 is compatible with LGPL

see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

so it might be ok to use an apache license

stefan

Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am currently faced with the problem that I'd like to use / import a
> lib which is licensed under the Apache License 2 (ALv2) [1].
> 
> I tried to find out if I can use a lib under the ALv2 in a
> LGPL product (namely tinyTiM), but cannot find a reliable source. I
> believe it's okay to use a lib under the ALv2, but I am not
> sure. GPL3 is compatible to ALv2, but all sources are silent about
> LGPL (2/3).
> 
> To cut a long story short, I wonder if we should move to the ALv2.
> 
> If someone finds a reliable source that it is okay to use an ALv2 lib
> within a LGPL lib, it would be okay for me, if tinyTiM stays under the
> LGPL.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> [1] <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>
> 
> Best regards,
> Lars

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI0hJebsixtqnWg1oRAh7DAJ0X2l4WB/yB318Jpt2j8TvTJ4bVZQCgiwLh
cpZQKA15CJrIN3oLIbCYjNM=
=ag/a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Apache License for tinyTiM?

[Markus U. <mar...@gm...>]

Hi,

as I noted on #topicmaps (log should be back soon, grr), it doesn't seem too
easy to determine this, cf.
http://tapestryjava.blogspot.com/2007/03/t5-spring-integration-hibernate-next.htmland
the looooong discussions regarding "Compatibility of the ASL and LGPL
(... in the specific case of Java)" from different mailing lists.

In short: "GPL guys" say: they are compatible, "ASL guys" say: no, they are
not.
There's a module called "tapestry-ejb3" which at a time "got bitten" by
this, cf. Howard Lewis Ship's blog post above. Maybe you could ask him
directly whether this has been resolved or investigate the whereabout of the
forementioned module...

Ad astra, Markus

2008/9/18 Stefan Lischke <li...@ap...>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Im not very into this licensing stuff. but i googled and found that apache
> v2 is compatible with LGPL
>
> see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>
> so it might be ok to use an apache license
>
> stefan
>
> Lars Heuer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am currently faced with the problem that I'd like to use / import a
> > lib which is licensed under the Apache License 2 (ALv2) [1].
> >
> > I tried to find out if I can use a lib under the ALv2 in a
> > LGPL product (namely tinyTiM), but cannot find a reliable source. I
> > believe it's okay to use a lib under the ALv2, but I am not
> > sure. GPL3 is compatible to ALv2, but all sources are silent about
> > LGPL (2/3).
> >
> > To cut a long story short, I wonder if we should move to the ALv2.
> >
> > If someone finds a reliable source that it is okay to use an ALv2 lib
> > within a LGPL lib, it would be okay for me, if tinyTiM stays under the
> > LGPL.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1] <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Lars
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFI0hJebsixtqnWg1oRAh7DAJ0X2l4WB/yB318Jpt2j8TvTJ4bVZQCgiwLh
> cpZQKA15CJrIN3oLIbCYjNM=
> =ag/a
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> tinyTiM-discuss mailing list
> tin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tinytim-discuss
>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Apache License for tinyTiM?

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Stefan,

[...]
> Im not very into this licensing stuff. but i googled and found that
> apache v2 is compatible with LGPL

> see
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Yes, found that too, but I am not sure if the same is true for LGPL.
They speak about "GPL", especially about v3, but LGPL is not
mentioned.

To avoid all that licensing stuff, would you mind if tinyTiM moves to
Apache License 2? As Markus has mentioned, the LGPL vs. ALv2 stuff
seems to be very vague and each party has a different opinion.

In particular, I am interested in a better URI / IRI handling and
currently I extract an IRI implementation from a project that uses
ALv2. So, the extracted lib would also use ALv2 and that lib I want to
use for tinyTiM.

I tried to implement my own URI normalizer and it worked so far, but
handling the whole *IRI* stuff requires more work (Unicode, Punycode
bla bla).

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Apache License for tinyTiM?

[Stefan L. <li...@ap...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

No i don't mind moving tinyTIM to ALv2, its you who is in charge right now, so i go with you.

Stefan

Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> [...]
>> Im not very into this licensing stuff. but i googled and found that
>> apache v2 is compatible with LGPL
> 
>> see
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> 
> Yes, found that too, but I am not sure if the same is true for LGPL.
> They speak about "GPL", especially about v3, but LGPL is not
> mentioned.
> 
> To avoid all that licensing stuff, would you mind if tinyTiM moves to
> Apache License 2? As Markus has mentioned, the LGPL vs. ALv2 stuff
> seems to be very vague and each party has a different opinion.
> 
> In particular, I am interested in a better URI / IRI handling and
> currently I extract an IRI implementation from a project that uses
> ALv2. So, the extracted lib would also use ALv2 and that lib I want to
> use for tinyTiM.
> 
> I tried to implement my own URI normalizer and it worked so far, but
> handling the whole *IRI* stuff requires more work (Unicode, Punycode
> bla bla).
> 
> Best regards,
> Lars



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI0kODbsixtqnWg1oRAmv+AJ9waqwkoZkfepHM621ckaGsIM0OSACdF45F
OHjWZDwebo8dQeDflR0CXdk=
=5UPK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Apache License for tinyTiM?

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Stefan,

> No i don't mind moving tinyTIM to ALv2, its you who is in charge
> right now, so i go with you.

Great. :)

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>