Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
Hello all, unfortunately separating the code is not enough too allow a new license. At a quick glance i only found only this http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface And to my knowledge the GPL enforces itself on derived work (incl. inheritance, use of interfaces). Thats why any work based on GPLed software has to be at least licensed for GPL. Dual licensing of the same is still allowed though. Regards ede -- > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > >> Martin, >> >> Thanks for this great clarification. I believe in my particular case I >> will have to release the converter code under the GPL, since I will be >> linking directly to JUMP code to do the conversion. >> >> I'll have to consider how important it is to use GPL for other code I >> write that isn't tied as directly to JUMP. I'd appreciate any thoughts >> on this. Does code released under the GPL discourage use and adoption >> in a way that code released under the LGPL does not? >> > yes.. do it under LGPL if you can (i.e. don't rely on GPL code). > what i have done (though i am still not sure if it is truly correct) is > to release the mapgentoolbox code under an apache like license. > But the important thing has been that i have put my code in separate > *.jars and not in the jar that contains the jump-extension class stuff. > I think that having two jars is the way. > > stefan > > >> The Sunburned Surveyor >> >> On 6/21/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I don't think you can develop code that links in GPL code under anything >>> except GPL. See here: >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins >>> >>> LGPL is weaker than GPL, so you can't release an actual plugin class >>> (which uses the JUMP API's) as LGPL. >>> >>> However, I think what you can do is package up an independent library >>> under some other license (as long as it doesn't use any JUMP code) and >>> then call it from a "wrapper" plugin which is under GPL. >>> >>> Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think Paul hit the nail on the head. GeoTools is worried about including code that can't be included in commercial applications. I found an interesting article that discusses whether or not you should use the LGPL or GPL for library code at the link Sascha sent. The article is here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html I'll have to think carefully about this. It seems like a very important difference. Any thoughts on whether or not we want to encourage development of OpenJUMP plug-ins and "support" or library code under the GPL or LGPL? (I'm probably opening Pandora's box with this question.) I'm really undecided as to which license I should use for my code. The Sunburned Surveyor On 6/21/07, Paul Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial > application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be > allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. > > I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL > ones. > > I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to > my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create > features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump > Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between > feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature > instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. > > Paul > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > > > > >> I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a >> converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the >> GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said >> that there may be some issues since any code that I write will >> necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is >> an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. >> >> I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get >> some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that >> works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code >> released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? >> >> Thanks for the suggestions. >> >> The Sunburned Surveyor >> >> - >> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express >> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take >> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. >> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ >>
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >Martin, > >Thanks for this great clarification. I believe in my particular case I >will have to release the converter code under the GPL, since I will be >linking directly to JUMP code to do the conversion. > >I'll have to consider how important it is to use GPL for other code I >write that isn't tied as directly to JUMP. I'd appreciate any thoughts >on this. Does code released under the GPL discourage use and adoption >in a way that code released under the LGPL does not? > > yes.. do it under LGPL if you can (i.e. don't rely on GPL code). what i have done (though i am still not sure if it is truly correct) is to release the mapgentoolbox code under an apache like license. But the important thing has been that i have put my code in separate *.jars and not in the jar that contains the jump-extension class stuff. I think that having two jars is the way. stefan >The Sunburned Surveyor > >On 6/21/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I don't think you can develop code that links in GPL code under anything >>except GPL. See here: >> >>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins >> >>LGPL is weaker than GPL, so you can't release an actual plugin class >>(which uses the JUMP API's) as LGPL. >> >>However, I think what you can do is package up an independent library >>under some other license (as long as it doesn't use any JUMP code) and >>then call it from a "wrapper" plugin which is under GPL. >> >>Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >> >> >>>I think Paul hit the nail on the head. GeoTools is worried about >>>including code that can't be included in commercial applications. >>> >>>I found an interesting article that discusses whether or not you >>>should use the LGPL or GPL for library code at the link Sascha sent. >>>The article is here: >>> >>>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html >>> >>>I'll have to think carefully about this. It seems like a very >>>important difference. Any thoughts on whether or not we want to >>>encourage development of OpenJUMP plug-ins and "support" or library >>>code under the GPL or LGPL? >>> >>>(I'm probably opening Pandora's box with this question.) >>> >>>I'm really undecided as to which license I should use for my code. >>> >>>The Sunburned Surveyor >>> >>>On 6/21/07, Paul Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL ones. I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. Paul Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a >converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the >GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said >that there may be some issues since any code that I write will >necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is >an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. > >I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get >some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that >works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code >released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? > >Thanks for the suggestions. > >The Sunburned Surveyor > >- >This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express >Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take >control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. >http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ >___ >Jump-pilot-devel mailing list >Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > > > - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
I've always used GPL, but never really understood how "viral" it was. I'll need to think about this some more, and maybe even ask my LUG. At any rate, I'll be forced to use GPL for anything that touches JUMP or OpenJUMP code to closely, which will be a lot of stuff. SS On 6/21/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > > Does code released under the GPL discourage use and adoption > > in a way that code released under the LGPL does not? > > > > > > Yes, I think that GPL discourages some kinds of use (in particular, > commercial use) more than LGPL. The reason for this is the "viral" > problem just discussed - if you link to it, your code has to be GPL as well. > > So if you want maximum uptake - LGPL. Or you could go whole hog and > just release as Public Domain - which means anyone can do anything with it. > > -- > Martin Davis > Senior Technical Architect > Refractions Research, Inc. > (250) 383-3022 > > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > Does code released under the GPL discourage use and adoption > in a way that code released under the LGPL does not? > > Yes, I think that GPL discourages some kinds of use (in particular, commercial use) more than LGPL. The reason for this is the "viral" problem just discussed - if you link to it, your code has to be GPL as well. So if you want maximum uptake - LGPL. Or you could go whole hog and just release as Public Domain - which means anyone can do anything with it. -- Martin Davis Senior Technical Architect Refractions Research, Inc. (250) 383-3022 - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
Martin, Thanks for this great clarification. I believe in my particular case I will have to release the converter code under the GPL, since I will be linking directly to JUMP code to do the conversion. I'll have to consider how important it is to use GPL for other code I write that isn't tied as directly to JUMP. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this. Does code released under the GPL discourage use and adoption in a way that code released under the LGPL does not? The Sunburned Surveyor On 6/21/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think you can develop code that links in GPL code under anything > except GPL. See here: > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins > > LGPL is weaker than GPL, so you can't release an actual plugin class > (which uses the JUMP API's) as LGPL. > > However, I think what you can do is package up an independent library > under some other license (as long as it doesn't use any JUMP code) and > then call it from a "wrapper" plugin which is under GPL. > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > > I think Paul hit the nail on the head. GeoTools is worried about > > including code that can't be included in commercial applications. > > > > I found an interesting article that discusses whether or not you > > should use the LGPL or GPL for library code at the link Sascha sent. > > The article is here: > > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > > > > I'll have to think carefully about this. It seems like a very > > important difference. Any thoughts on whether or not we want to > > encourage development of OpenJUMP plug-ins and "support" or library > > code under the GPL or LGPL? > > > > (I'm probably opening Pandora's box with this question.) > > > > I'm really undecided as to which license I should use for my code. > > > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > > > On 6/21/07, Paul Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial > >> application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be > >> allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. > >> > >> I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL > >> ones. > >> > >> I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to > >> my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create > >> features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump > >> Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between > >> feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature > >> instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > >> > >>> I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a > >>> converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the > >>> GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said > >>> that there may be some issues since any code that I write will > >>> necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is > >>> an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. > >>> > >>> I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get > >>> some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that > >>> works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code > >>> released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? > >>> > >>> Thanks for the suggestions. > >>> > >>> The Sunburned Surveyor > >>> > >>> - > >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > >>> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > >>> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > >>> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > >>> ___ > >>> Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > >>> Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > >>> > >>> > >> - > >> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > >> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > >> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > >> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > >> ___ > >> Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > >> Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > >> > >> > > > > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > ___ > > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
I don't think you can develop code that links in GPL code under anything except GPL. See here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins LGPL is weaker than GPL, so you can't release an actual plugin class (which uses the JUMP API's) as LGPL. However, I think what you can do is package up an independent library under some other license (as long as it doesn't use any JUMP code) and then call it from a "wrapper" plugin which is under GPL. Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > I think Paul hit the nail on the head. GeoTools is worried about > including code that can't be included in commercial applications. > > I found an interesting article that discusses whether or not you > should use the LGPL or GPL for library code at the link Sascha sent. > The article is here: > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > > I'll have to think carefully about this. It seems like a very > important difference. Any thoughts on whether or not we want to > encourage development of OpenJUMP plug-ins and "support" or library > code under the GPL or LGPL? > > (I'm probably opening Pandora's box with this question.) > > I'm really undecided as to which license I should use for my code. > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > On 6/21/07, Paul Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial >> application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be >> allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. >> >> I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL ones. >> >> I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to >> my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create >> features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump >> Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between >> feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature >> instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. >> >> Paul >> >> Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >> >>> I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a >>> converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the >>> GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said >>> that there may be some issues since any code that I write will >>> necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is >>> an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. >>> >>> I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get >>> some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that >>> works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code >>> released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestions. >>> >>> The Sunburned Surveyor >>> >>> - >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express >>> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take >>> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. >>> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ >>> ___ >>> Jump-pilot-devel mailing list >>> Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel >>> >>> >> - >> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express >> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take >> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. >> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ >> ___ >> Jump-pilot-devel mailing list >> Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel >> >> > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > -- Martin Davis Senior Technical Architect Refractions Research, Inc. (250) 383-3022 - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
Paul, note that 'commercial' is _not_ the opposite of 'free software'! 'Proprietary' or 'non free' is the opposite. - Sascha Paul Austin schrieb: > The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial > application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be > allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. > > I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL ones. > > I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to > my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create > features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump > Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between > feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature > instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. > Paul - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
I think Paul hit the nail on the head. GeoTools is worried about including code that can't be included in commercial applications. I found an interesting article that discusses whether or not you should use the LGPL or GPL for library code at the link Sascha sent. The article is here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html I'll have to think carefully about this. It seems like a very important difference. Any thoughts on whether or not we want to encourage development of OpenJUMP plug-ins and "support" or library code under the GPL or LGPL? (I'm probably opening Pandora's box with this question.) I'm really undecided as to which license I should use for my code. The Sunburned Surveyor On 6/21/07, Paul Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial > application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be > allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. > > I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL ones. > > I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to > my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create > features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump > Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between > feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature > instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. > > Paul > > Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > > I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a > > converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the > > GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said > > that there may be some issues since any code that I write will > > necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is > > an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. > > > > I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get > > some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that > > works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code > > released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > > > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > ___ > > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > > > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
The only problem would be if you used SS's new classes in a commercial application. Which in fact would be unlikely as they would not be allowed to use the JUMP code anyway because it is GPL. I think the rule is commercial apps can use LGPL libraries but not GPL ones. I took another approach for the same problem I added a FeatureFactory to my reader components and have a JumpFeatureFactory that will create features which implement both my DataObject interface and the Jump Feature interface. This way there is no conversion required between feature models. You just set the factory based on the type of feature instance you want. The reader uses this factory to create the instances. Paul Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a > converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the > GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said > that there may be some issues since any code that I write will > necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is > an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. > > I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get > some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that > works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code > released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
just to remind you: jts = lgpl jump = gpl == sum = no problem ;) Sascha L. Teichmann schrieb: > If only GPL and LGPL are involved then there is no problem. see: > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses > > - Sascha > > Sunburned Surveyor schrieb: >> I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a >> converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the >> GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said >> that there may be some issues since any code that I write will >> necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is >> an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. >> >> I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get >> some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that >> works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code >> released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? >> >> Thanks for the suggestions. >> >> The Sunburned Surveyor > > > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
If only GPL and LGPL are involved then there is no problem. see: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses - Sascha Sunburned Surveyor schrieb: > I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a > converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the > GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said > that there may be some issues since any code that I write will > necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is > an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. > > I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get > some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that > works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code > released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > The Sunburned Surveyor - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
[JPP-Devel] GPL and LGPL Compatibility
I was talking to Jody Garnett a little bit about a home for a converter or pair of converters that would allow developers to do the GeoTools > JUMP and JUMP > GeoTools Feature Model conversion. He said that there may be some issues since any code that I write will necessarily need to utilize JUMP code released under the GPL. This is an issue because GeoTools is released under the LGPL. I don't know as much about this area as I should, so I'm hoping to get some suggestions from this group. How might I be able to get code that works with JUMP code under the GPl to play nice with GeoTools code released under the LGPL? Is this even possible? Thanks for the suggestions. The Sunburned Surveyor - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
