Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name
> under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I
> don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write
> his format, however. A secondary thing here, however, is that you
> generally want to get on with your upstream. If you start doing things
> he doesn't like, then he will make life difficult for you (see: ion3).
Yeah. Since the biggest users of the Jumbo software, and also promotors of that CML format, distribute a patched version of the software, it's something they'll have to work out amongst themselves. I think it won't stay for all that long. Either that or I'll be an annoying bastard and harp on it in emails. ;)
The feedback here has helped. The CML maintainers are going to split off the CC-BY-ND into another file which can go into non-free, the rest of the JUMBO code will clarified to be "Apache 2.0", the CML developers are going through all their code to check that there are no other outstanding licensing details like that.
There's the minor point outstanding of it Apache 2.0's relicense clause allows LGPL, but the only time that will come into play is if as of yet non-existent downstream providers package the software and distribute the derived system with a license fee. My judgement is that that is unlikely, what CML has done is enough, that the result is free (since it can all go to GPL), and therefore these changes fit into Debian's policy.
Cheers!
Andrew
dalke@dalkescientific.com
Reply to: