W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 18∶01 +0200, użytkownik Thomas Schmitt napisał: > Hi, > > Marek Mosiewicz wrote: > > That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble > > there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2 license. > > It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+ > > It could well be Apache2 or BSD, provided that it is _for_ the GPL2 > licensed project, and does not contain copyrighted work _from_ a GPL2 > licensed project. > > If you are legally entitled to issue a permissive license and do it, It is new project for ADempiere and one of main main consideration is license > then each of your releases can swim down the Wikipedia diagram to > GPLv3+. I belive it is not how this diagram should be read.
It is true that you can link permissive licensed code with correspondign LGPL. That is because LGPL does not obligate you to relicense whole work as strict GPL. You can even link commercial code with LGPL. It is also true that you can link LGPL code with corresponding GPL license code. That is because LGPL contains clause that you can always switch from LGPL to GPL I think however that it is NOT true that you can link directly from BSD/MIT/Apache2 to corresponding strict GPL license. On diagram there is no direct relation between e.g. MIT and GPL2. In my opinion it means that you can only link permissive license via LGPL proxy API. It probably also brings question about distribiuing MIT- >LGPL->GPL as one program. > Permissively and copyleftly licensed programs alike can then use it > by > their right to re-license it. > Just make sure your releases are comprised only of permissivel > licensed > parts. > > > Have a nice day :) > > Thomas >
