Dear all, I've just noticed that a few weeks ago Jan Skowron clarified the license of original Fortran library: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~jskowron/cmplx_roots_sg/ It's clear now that one can choose to apply either Apache license or LGPL. The customary scientific license has been dropped, now there is a simple invitation to cite the paper.
In order to make PolynomialRoots.jl <https://github.com/giordano/PolynomialRoots.jl> as widely usable as possible in Julia environment, does it make sense to preserve this dual license for the package or it's better to choose one of them in order to avoid confusion? My understanding is that both licenses are MIT-compatible in the sense that both LGPL and Apache codes can be linked in MIT code. Cheers, Mosè Great – they obviously intended for this to be open source and used, so I'm > sure they won't mind clarifying. > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Mosè Giordano <mose.g...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hi Steven and Stefan, >> >> 2016-05-05 22:29 GMT+02:00 Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org >> <javascript:>>: >> > The phrasing of this licensing is unclear but essentially the same as >> the >> > original Fortran library: >> > >> >> The authors release the source codes associated with the Paper under >> terms >> >> of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2 or any later >> version, or >> >> under the Apache License, Version 2.0 as well as under a "customary >> >> scientific license", which implies that if this code was important in >> the >> >> scientific process or for the results of your scientific work, we ask >> for >> >> the appropriate citation of the Paper (Skowron & Gould 2012). >> > >> > >> > Their wording seems to indicate dual licensing under LGPL 2 or Apache 2, >> > which would mean that following the terms of either license gives the >> right >> > to use the software. But then it throws in the "as well as under a >> > 'customary scientific license'" clause, which completely muddies the >> waters. >> > Does that mean that you may use the software if you follow the terms of >> LGPL >> > 2 AND cite them OR follow the terms of Apache 2 AND cite them? Or that >> you >> > may use the software if you follow the terms of LGPL 2 OR cite them OR >> > follow the terms of Apache 2 and cite them? Under the former >> interpretation, >> > it would be illegal to use this software as part of a derived work >> including >> > any GPL libraries (which includes Julia in its default configuration) >> since >> > the "customary scientific license" conflicts with the GPL, thereby >> making it >> > impossible to comply with all terms required to be allowed to use the >> > combined product. >> > >> > If the authors intended to require you to follow both the LGPL 2 and >> Apache >> > 2 licenses, the situation may be even worse, since, IIRC, those licenses >> > themselves conflict, so it would be impossible to satisfy the conditions >> > required to be allowed to use the software at all. >> > >> > It seems like it may be necessary to contact the authors and request >> their >> > clarification of the terms under which one may use their software. >> >> I confirm I used the same license as the original library. Actually, >> I interpreted the "customary scientific license" as a request, not as >> a legal obligation (but I'm not a native English speaker nor a >> lawyer). The fact that two or more people can't agree on the >> interpretation shows that probably the license requires clarification, >> I'll contact the author and ask for it. >> >> Bye, >> Mosè >> > >
