On Wednesday 29 December 2004 16:43, Miguel wrote: > > I got the go-ahead from my customers to give this a shot -- I'll report > > back on how it goes. I'll try to do it in such a way that the J# version > > can be automatically generated from the Java version. I'll have to check > > with our IP guys, but I think I'll be able to contribute the J# version > > back to the Jmol project. (We haven't worked much with open source at > > Brown, yet). > > Sascha, > > I am somewhat concerned by some of your comments. Just to clarify ... > > You said: > > I'll have to check with our IP guys, but I think I'll be > > able to contribute the J# version back to the Jmol project. > > You are doing a direct translation of the Jmol source code into J#. That > is clearly a derivative work.
Agreed. > If you use or modify the Jmol source code then you must make the source > code available unde the LGPL license. Partly agree. See below. > The Jmol project may or may not choose to incorporate your source, but the > decision is ours, not yours. > > If those terms are not acceptable then you may not use the Jmol source > code. > > Make sure your *IP guys* understand and agree with that. That's indeed very important. > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html > > No doubt the legal staff at Brown takes IP very seriously ... I do too. > > Please feel free to contact me if you or your attorneys have any questions. I was just looking up these things, and mostly agree with Miguel's analysis. Some comments. One the GNU/Linux platform it is assumed to be legal to write proprietary software that used kernel functionality, given that the later is accessed using a well defined interface. The idea here is that the thing beneath the interface can be replaced so the program using the interface is not really depending on the implementation, but on the interface instead. That said, Jmol uses an interface, so I *think* (I'm not an attorney, so I might be wrong) that not subclassing LGPL code (because that's derived work for sure [1]) and not modifying LGPL code, allows you to keep stuff proprietary. But as soon as you have to make modifications to LGPL classes *or* subclass LGPL classes, *that* code must be LGPL too. I hope that is a bit clear. Another thing is that the above only applies *when* you actually distribute things. As long as you keep derived work internal, i.e. do not distribute anything (sell/give away/share/whatever), you are not obliged to distribute the source code with LGPL. The reason why I say this: you're fine trying to get it to work first, and decide then wether you want to start distribute it. Egon 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] PhD student on Molecular Representation in Chemometrics Radboud University Nijmegen http://www.cac.science.ru.nl/people/egonw/ GPG: 1024D/D6336BA6 ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
