Hi Martin,
Thanks for your help!
I guess that I will have to do that. Our code and applications would be
free of charge and open source, but I have kind of a doubt now about
this licensing (what a mess...). Maybe we will just need to release
under GPLv2 as well. My question arose when looking at the matrix you
just posted and I don't quite get everything...
Cheers,
Yoann
On 29/01/14 14:33, Martin Grebac wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm not familiar with eupl, as well as I'm not a lawyer, thus my
> strong advice is to contact your legal department / lawyer with any
> licencing questions.
> MartiNG
>
> FWIW, googling shows e.g. this page:
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences
>
>
> On 29/01/14 10:26, Yoann Moranville wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm not quite sure this is the correct place to ask but maybe some
>> developers have already had the same issue and could help me.
>>
>> We are thinking about releasing our work under the EUPL, however the
>> jaxb implementation we use is released under CCDLv1.1+GPLv2
>> (https://jaxb.java.net/2.2.6/).
>> We are using the library via maven, so not modifying any code but
>> using it as a library - the library is then assembled into our
>> application (inside 1 jar - as I understood, called "static linking").
>>
>> So my question is: would it be possible to release our work under
>> EUPL as it is? Or should we extract the library into a "lib"
>> directory ("dynamic linking"?)? Would that be allowed? Or should we
>> altogether think about releasing it under a different open source
>> license?
>>
>> Thanks for the help,
>> Yoann
>