Andrus > Per recent discussion on Apache Legal list [2], it is NOT OK to take > Apache code and strip the license headers from it and relicense them > as GPL.
That was not the plan. We would keep the licence an notices on all files and just put these files directly into our own project. So our project would contain ASL and GPL code. I thought that if both projects agree this should not be of a problem. But I agree this solution is not perfect in a legal view. The technicaly easiest solution would be if Cayenne agrees in our project taking exlusively (and only for our SOBF Tool) the data view source code (and dvmodeler) and relicence it under the GPL. With the condition that we dual-licence everything we do on the DataViews under the ASL. Like that we could integrate everything without the need to have a separate lib. The legaly easiest solution would be to just extract the DataView from Cayenne and create a new lib licenced under the ASL. But this is a hassle for the development process which I would welcome to not have. Except there is some trick to tell Eclipse to handle two separate projects as one (debugging and compiling). But I guess we have to go this second way :( Do the licence requirements concerning the written CLA apply when submitting back to Cayenne or before? And only if we don't fork? > So - is there any way you can continue using Apache-licensed > DataViews (as a library dependency or something? I am not a big > expert on GPL limitations)? This should be easier from the technical > POV as well, as you won't need to fork and resubmit patches to keep > Cayenne in sync. Just a quick question. Is the DataView still in the 3.0 bleeding edge build? If so, we have to change the namespace anyway and there would be no gain in making a new library. > The GPL/Apache > license incompatibility hurts everybody, but that's how things are > until ASF and FSF work it out :-( I never thought I'd say this. But this licencing stuff turns out to be royal PITA. Regards, Adrian
