Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?
W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 18∶29 +0200, użytkownik
tomas@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that
> > MIT(X11)
> > and BSD are GPL compatible [1]
>
> I don't know what's "unfortunate". They are GPL compatible,
> meaning you can take any BSD/MIT licensed piece of code and
> integrate it into a GPL corpus. As you can integrate them
> into any other proprietary corpus.
>
> It isn't going to work the other way around (GPL isn't MIT
> compatibe in the above sense). "Compatible" isn't a symmetric
> relation (otherwise, the mentioned diagram would have lines,
> not arrows :-)
Arrows show THE PATH :). You need to RELICENSE your code to LGPL to be
able to link it with GPL. If it is not the case why there is no direct
arrow between for example BSD and GPL2 ?
>
> > That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
> > selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]
> >
> > That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]
> >
> > One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially
> > in
> > Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with
> > Apache2
> > license.
> >
> > It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+
>
> That depends on what your goals and ideals are.
>
> Cheers
> - t
Reply to: