[Fwd: [Rxtx] Proposal 3.0; Apache and LGPL license for the RXSL]

[Julien Vermillard <jv...@archean.fr>]

Look like our serial lib license issue are going to be solved. 
RXTX guys are thinking  about moving from LGPL a double license
(LGPL/ASL).

Julien

Re: [Fwd: [Rxtx] Proposal 3.0; Apache and LGPL license for the RXSL]

[Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>]

Julien Vermillard wrote:
> Look like our serial lib license issue are going to be solved. 
> RXTX guys are thinking  about moving from LGPL a double license
> (LGPL/ASL).
> 

That's not possible.  These licenses are not compatible.  Someone should 
talk/help these guys out.

You might want to recommend they ask legal@apache.org about it for advice.

Regards,
Alex


> Julien
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> [Rxtx] Proposal 3.0; Apache and LGPL license for the RXSL
> From:
> "Dr. Douglas Lyon" <ly...@docjava.com>
> Date:
> Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:45:56 -0400
> To:
> rxtx@qbang.org, lyon@docjava.com
> 
> To:
> rxtx@qbang.org, lyon@docjava.com
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> I have been waiting a day for things to cool down.
> Licensing appears to be a hot-button topic.
> 
> I have no objection to dual license the interfaces as  both
> Apache and LGPL.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> Goal: developers wish to work together on a
> common piece of code that the team needs.
> 
> It makes sense that the
> code base they work on should be Apache-licensed.  That makes it possible
> for the team to use and develop common code, even if the end result
>   is LGPL'd as a whole.
> 
> If we combine licenses, we must follow the terms of both
> licenses when distributing the combined work.
> 
> Thus, the dual license contains the super
> set of terms in the licenses of Apached and LGPL.
> 
> This should address concern about using Apache-licensed code within
> LGPL projects due to the FSF's claim that they are incompatible.
> 
> Here is a draft statement for RXSL:
> 
> The RXTX Specification Library (RXSL) uses a dual license strategy 
> for the source code.
> These licenses are the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and 
> the Apache License.
> I strongly encourage users to use the LGPL license and participate 
> fully in the free software community.
> 
> Dual licensing of the RXSL source code provides open and free access 
> to the technology both for the GPL community and for other developers 
> or companies that cannot use the GPL.
> 
> Dual license is common practice in open source projects like 
> OpenOffice, Perl and Mozilla.
> Through the combined use of LGPL and Apache license, developers will 
> have a high degree of freedom yet compatibility and interoperability 
> will be preserved.
> 
> You can freely modify, extend, and improve the RXSL source code. The 
> only question is whether or not you must provide the source code and 
> contribute modifications to the community. The GNU and Apache 
> licenses allow different ranges of flexibility in this regard, but in 
> the end, regardless of the license used, any and all incompatible 
> changes must be published openly.
> 
> Note that there is the RXTX Reference Model that uses the org.rxtx 
> package, which itself is protected by the LGPL. This may be part of 
> the distribution, however, it can not be redistributed using a 
> different license.
> 
> Is everybody OK with this?
> 
> Thanks Trent, great idea!
>   - Doug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rxtx mailing list
> Rxtx@qbang.org
> http://mailman.qbang.org/mailman/listinfo/rxtx