Posted by
Saalfeld, Stephan on
Nov 17, 2014; 5:02pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/creating-a-real-blank-image-tp5010383p5010488.html
Hi Herbie,
`fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as such
prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I
therefore feel urged to clarify:
The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is that
you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you
wrote ImageJ1.
With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the
licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open
source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints.
The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires
you to retain that copyright notice and make this information accessible
for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos
to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare
`fundamental' for something more `fundamental'.
Best,
Stephan
On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote:
> Many thanks Curtis!
>
> The <
http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an
> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but it
> explains why...
>
> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are fundamentally
> different.
>
> Thanks again and best regards
>
> Herbie
>
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote:
> > Hi Herbie,
> >
> >> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its additional
> >> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain
> >> ImageJ1?
> >
> > Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the Simplified
> > BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It makes
> > only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright notice,
> > for purposes of provenance tracking and citation.
> >
> > We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in the
> > projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses are
> > indeed valid.
> >
> > The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, including a
> > discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status:
> >
> > *
http://imagej.net/Licensing> >
> > These pages may be informative as well:
> >
> > *
http://choosealicense.com/> > *
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government> >
> > Regards,
> > Curtis
> >
> > [1]
http://imagej.net/SciJava> > [2]
http://imagej.net/BSD> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know,
> >>
> >> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its
> >> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain
> >> ImageJ1?
> >>
> >> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the same
> >> functionality as ImageJ1.
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Herbie
> >> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >>
> >> --
> >> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html> >>
> >
> > --
> > ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html> >
>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html