First off, debian-legal isn't really a place for distributing advice on which license to choose, although we can let you know which ones are DFSG Free, and which ones are likely to conflict with other libraries. As always, the following is not legal advice. You may wish to retain the services of a real lawyer to discuss these issues, and/or contact licensing@gnu.org with further concerns. On Mon, 09 Feb 2004, Mike Hommey wrote: > Considering all these different licenses graviting around the > project, I was wondering which one(s) would be suitable to avoid > licensing conflicts. My very first idea was Affero GPL with some > linking exceptions (which should be needed for linking to apache), > but I'm now considering just going for LGPL for the whole and/or GPL > for some parts where possible, but I must admit that having so much > licenses graviting around is a bit scary (therefore, it's so easy to > create incompatibilities...). Any idea is welcome ^^ I would personally stay away from the Affero license, as it is not DFSG Free at all, nor does it appear to be GPL compatible. That being said, you can most likely use a GPL or the LGPL for this work, assuming that you grant appropriate linking exceptions[1] if it forms a derivative work of Apache licensed under the 2.0 ASL. The GPL is generally held to be completely compatible with the MIT/X11 style licenses, the LGPL, and (obviously) itself, so as these are the only works which you have to be concerned with, you should be ok. Don Armstrong 1: There is still some controversy as to whether the linking exceptions are necessary as the FSF hasn't come out and said that the GPL is compatibility or incompatible with the ASL 2.0. -- "The question of whether computers can think is like the question of whether submarines can swim." -- Edsgar Dijkstra http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature