On Aug 11, 5:05 am, "Brian T. Rice" <
briantr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (IANAL) Porting code between languages generally doesn't require a  
> transfer of license, as long as the languages require sufficiently  
> different means of expression. Algorithms and designs aren't  
> copyrighted - just the text of the implementation. In this case,  
> though, both licenses are quite liberal so a violation would be pretty  
> inoffensive as long as citation were made.
IANAL either. My concern is not compatibility between the licenses
themselves. Apache certainly allows the creation of derivative works
and as far as I can tell the BSD license is not incompatible with it.
I am more concerned with the wording of the contributor license which
requires contributors to assert that they are the copyright owner
(clearly in this case I would not be) and that their contributions
will be licensed under the BSD license.
That said I won't fret about it.
>
> P.S. Thanks for the great work in increasing Strongtalk's portability.
You're welcome :)
>
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Gilad Bracha wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't fret over the licensing. Apache is pretty damn liberal.  
> > The only real downside is that you will have different licenses for  
> > different parts of the source. Long term, this is probably  
> > inevitable anyway. Each class in Strongtalk points to its own  
> > license already. And, oh, BTW, there is no point trying to get  
> > Cadence to change the licensing.  My original plan was to use BSD,  
> > but their lawyers wanted Apache. In any event, at this point there  
> > is nobody to talk to about this.
>
> > So I would not waste scarce resources re-inventing the alien wheel.  
> > Once you get the aliens working, it shouldn't be too hard to get the  
> > entire Brazil/Hopscotch GUI running as well. And that will have the  
> > same license.
>
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:37 AM, talksmall <
StephenLR...@googlemail.com