db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From peter riegersperger <r...@subnet.at>
Subject OT: Re: a licensing question
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:53:05 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 18 February 2003 17:43, Kurt Schrader wrote:
> > peter riegersperger wrote:
> > > torque itself is licensed under the apache foundation license, meaning
> > > that i can include the libraries in a gpl'ed project. ok.
>
> Just another note, GPLed projects can't include Apache licensed libraries,
> because of the advertising clause.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

whoa, licensing issues. always make me sea-sick.

i guess you refer to:

 * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
 *    if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
 *       "This product includes software developed by the
 *        Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
 *    Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
 *    if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

in the apache software license.
but what about:

 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 *    the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
 *    distribution.
 
to me, this clearly indicates that *if* i redistribute the torque-jars, i have 
to include two things in my documentation and/or my program:

1. a copy of the asl (and a note that it applies to torque).
2. a note that my project uses torque.

so, why would this keep me from licensing my project under the gpl (with "my 
project" being my own source code?)

for one, i could simply not redistribute torque, but tell people to download 
it themselves (that's pretty much what we do when we say people should 
download a jre). or second, i could include torque in my distribution, as 
long as i explicitely say that torque itself follows a different license 
scheme.

are these assumptions not correct?

thanks,

rick




- -- 
|-
| peter riegersperger  <rick@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+UnMGIMP39JYOy9IRAoVNAJ0WhuwCTHjk824HE91CZFe8/TorLwCghDV0
fRq8c6RbjTg5964sruO4VEE=
=0jt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Mime
View raw message