cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: (Re)Licensing question
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:57:33 GMT
Andrew Stevens wrote:
>> From: Helma van der Linden <>
>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:31:25 +0100
>> Guys,
>> I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to 
>> know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up 
>> of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another 
>> (sub)project is licensed under BSD.
>> This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their 
>> part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they 
>> included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all 
>> external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in 
>> the various files.
>> Is this correct?
> Given that GNU [1] list the Apache licenses as "GPL-Incompatible, Free 
> Software Licenses", I've always interpreted that to mean that you can't 
> link to (i.e. make use of) Apache-licensed libraries (jars) in a project 
> that you're releasing under the GPL.  They don't appear to have an 
> equivalent list for LGPL compatibility, unfortunately.
> I do recall that previous discussions on this list have stated that 
> Apache-hosted projects aren't allowed to [L]GPL libraries in their CVS 
> repositories.
> If I've got this all backwards, someone please let me know; I've a 
> project of my own [2] that I would have licensed under GPL if not for 
> the fact that I made use of libraries that were released under Apache 
> and BSD licenses.  Instead I went for LGPL on the grounds that I can 
> find a lot of other LGPL'd projects that use the same libraries, so it 
> looks like that's okay...

FYI, LGPL is incompatible with the Apache License as much as the GPL, so 
the exact same reasoning applies.


View raw message