http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/creating-a-real-blank-image-tp5010383p5010491.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>