Hey Catalin, not a big deal. Honestly the licensing question is a not trivial drama :-)
-M On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Catalin Kormos <catalin.kor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Matthias, > > All clear, thanks a lot for the clarifications, I might have went a > bit too fast over the compatibility of licenses when I checked it out. > > regards, > Catalin > > > On 1/28/10, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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 >> > > > -- > ------------ > Codebeat > www.codebeat.ro > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
