On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > I do hate opening this can of worms, but it was discussed today in few > places that semweb is distributed under terms of Creative Commons > Attribution License 2.0, which is not GPL compatible according to what > debian-legal@ guys say.
I thought I would bring Joshua, the author of semweb <http://razor.occams.info/code/semweb/>, into the conversation. Joshua, would you be willing to license semweb under a standard Free Software license? The Creative Commons licenses aren't compatible with the GPL, which is sad since the GPL F-Spot project seems to want to use your code and can't for that reason. Here's one that seem like you might like it (plus is compatible with F-Spot): The MIT License <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php> says, basically, "Do what you want, but you have to leave my copyright notice in the source code of any derived work" - that sounds like why you picked "Attribution". For comparison, the Java SPARQL project <http://sourceforge.net/projects/sparql> that you said you based yours on chose the GNU LGPL. GNU offers two main licenses: The GPL, which says basically, "If you distribute this work linked to your separate work, or if you distribute a modified copy of this work, then that work must be under the same license." The LGPL is the GPL with an extra note, "But if you just combine (without changing) this with your work, then you can distribute the combination under whatever license you want." CC does tell you to avoid using CC licenses for software for these reasons; see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F . Sorry about the long email. Do keep us posted! -- Asheesh. -- A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected. _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
