Hey Catalin,
CDDL may/can work: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html GPL3 is NOT compatible. However, projects that are licensed under GPL3 can actually now include Apache2 licensed software; That is the reason why *they* state GPL3 is compatible. See here, no the "no-go" section. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x Some more info on Apache2 / GPL3: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Snip: *However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects.* And it also explains implicit issues, that in worst case the Apache software (e.g. the demo) would have to be released under GPL3, which is a no-go => of course -Matthias On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Catalin Kormos <catalin.kor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bernd, > > Ok, the problematic code will be removed asap. There is still an > alternate approach there, which was used first, formatting source code > with https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/. This can easily replace the JS > based formatting. Do you see any issues with using jhighlight? we > don't distribute any code of it, just have a dependency to it. > > Sorry for any inconvenience. > > regards, > Catalin > > On 1/28/10, Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hi catalin, >> >> The apache license and the gnu public license are not compatible from the >> asf side. It would be safe to remove the gpl code. >> >> Regards >> >> Bernd >> >> 28.01.2010 13:52 schrieb am "Catalin Kormos" <catalin.kor...@gmail.com>: >> >> Hi Matthias, >> >> This JS library "SyntaxHighlighter" is used to format code, and its >> license is GNU either version 3 or later: >> >> "SyntaxHighlighter is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify >> it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by >> the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or >> (at your option) any later version." >> >> The apache 2.0 license seems to be compatible with it as shown here: >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL >> >> Based on this I was thinking there is no issue with this, if I was >> wrong we will get rid of commited code which requires that GNU >> license. So it's for sure a no go? >> >> thanks, >> Catalin >> >> On 1/28/10, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> wrote: > As far as I see >> it this is "only" some... >> -- >> ------------ >> Codebeat >> www.codebeat.ro >> > > > -- > ------------ > Codebeat > www.codebeat.ro > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
