[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Lost in licensing - is the following strategy water-proof?

From: Hendrik Belitz
Subject: Lost in licensing - is the following strategy water-proof?
Date: 24 May 2007 02:05:53 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

Dear open-source-fellows,

I started developing a project some time ago and want to make it
public in the near future. Therefore, I tried to find the most
suitable licensing strategy for my stuff which (optionally) depends on
a whole bunch of supporting libraries, which means I have find a
license which is compatible to

1. Artistic licensing (I link to Blitz++, which is licensed that way,
this is transparent to the end user which should also be able to take
advantage of using Blitz++ structures and algorithms in his derived
work based on my library)
2. BSD-sytle licensing (I make heavy use of VTK code, so)
3. Apache licensing (I link to Xerces C++, this is not visible to the
end user)
4. LGPL-licensing (lots of other stuff)

None of this libraries will be distributed by myself, since I did not
altered any source code of these libs.

My actual question is: What license am I able to use for my own lib.
Is usage of the LGPL compatible with linkage to the Xerces C++
library? May I even license my library under a BSD-style license? I
googled for all of this stuff, but I'd only found very contradictory
answers, especially regarding the (in)compability of GNU-style and
Apache-style licenses in particular.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]