Re: AW: shark licence

Thanks for clarification. Thought this is what we supposed would be the case,
the fact the engine is under LGPL while graphical interfaces are under GPL is
not stated anywhere in the distribution files. This should perhaps be 
stated more clearly (like a list with licence for each .jar) to prevent 
misunderstandings :) ?  (Unless i missed something)

Le Mercredi 3 Août 2005 12:23, Madl Alfred - Together AT a écrit :
> Hi !
> 
> Just to clarify:
> 
> Shark itself is a library (with optional wrapper services) licensed
> under LGPL.
> 
> The Admin GUI is an application which uses parts of JaWE an JGraph and
> is licensed under GPL. Since I think nobody will have to link to / call
> parts of the Admin GUI the GPL license of this part should not "harm"
> your Shark LGPL usage in applications.

Yes but admin interface is useful to administer the engine and shark loses a bit of
it's interest if you have to recreate all administration interfaces to redistribute it :)
(Moreover we *did* link to the admin interface inside a process viewer applet)
Hope full LGPL will come soon.

> 
> One of the next releases of JaWE will use a LGPL version of JGraph so
> even this license and the license of the Admin GUI will change to LGPL
> in the future.

Awaiting for this release :) (And i pray all JAwE contributors will agree on the licencing change)

> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Greetings.
> 
> Alfred Madl
> 
> 

Thanks

> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: delbd [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Bereitgestellt: Dienstag, 02. August 2005 10:45
> Bereitgestellt in: Shark
> Unterhaltung: [shark] shark licence
> Betreff: [shark] shark licence
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Shark licence is quite strange, i need some clarifications about it.
> 
> This is declared on objetweb as in LGPL licence.
> However, it includes and links to jars from the jawe project, but the
> jawe project is under GPL licence, which means code using the jawe
> classes must be put under a GPL compatible licence (this is well known
> as the contamination behaviour of GPL licence) LGPL is not a GPL
> compatible licence (because LGPL does not force 
> code source distribution of programs linking to the LGPL code).
> 
> We need clarification on licence here, as we can use a LGPL licenced
> workflow engine, but we can't afford a GPL licenced one.
> 
> Thanks for informations.
> 

-- 
David Delbecq
Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium

-
Is there life after /sbin/halt -p?

--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [email protected] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]
For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws