Project license

[bayandin]

I'm confused regarding the license that the project uses:

• The repo itself says Apache 2.0: https://github.com/harvard-lts/fits/blob/1.5.2/License.md
• But the website says that it's under LGPL license: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/fits/code-license

Could you please confirm which license is correct?

[awoods]

Hello, @bayandin .
Thanks for raising the inconsistency. Even though Harvard's Library Technology Services team has a preference for Apache 2, given the fact that FITS includes GPL libraries, it would be incompatible to release FITS as Apache 2.

See: #318

[pwinckles]

@awoods Which component are you referring to? Most of them are LGPL which I don't think will create a problem because it doesn't trigger copyleft for linking. I'm not sure about exiftool. It's an odd one that use the artistic license, which I haven't had a chance to read up on yet. If it was a problem, you could certainly avoid the issue by not redistributing exiftool, like I would prefer, and use the system copy. FITS shells out to it.

[pwinckles]

exiftools' license, which is the same as Perl's. I think Perl is using v1 of the artistic license, which seems very permissive.

In the Java ecosystem, the majority of GPL libraries either use LGPL or GPLv2 with a class path exemption. The later is how Java itself is licensed. Neither of these license are copyleft when used via linking. In fact, it sounds like it is more problematic for a LGPL project to link to an Apache 2 project than the opposite.

[awoods]

@pwinckles:
If the code-license page is up to date (which would benefit from verification), we need to consider the inclusion of libraries covering the following licenses:

1. LGPL v2.1
2. GPL or the artistic license ??
3. Apache v1.1, v2
4. BSD v2
5. BSD style

The question is, which license can compatibly include libraries with the above licenses. @pwinckles , is your understanding that the answer is "Apache v2"?

[pwinckles]

@awoods Yes, obviously not a lawyer, but my understanding is the Apache v2 is the appropriate license to use, and that if this project were instead licensed as LGPL (v2.1 at least; not sure about 3) then it would be incompatible with its Apache 2 dependencies. But, perhaps you should run it by your legal team?