Actually, your statement is not completely accurate. SemWeb is not just GPL but dual-licensed. The source code written by Joshua Tauberer is also licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license. Since ROWLEX relies solely on the code Joshua wrote, the Creative Common Attribution license permits ROWLEX to be distributed under L-GPL.
Upon reading the Semweb licensing information, it states that it is currenly licensed under the GPL and the Creative Commons Attribution license, but that originally it was only licensed under the CC Attribution License. It also contains parts that are licensed under the LGPL, and the W3C Software License. I'm assuming that Rowlex started using the Semweb code at the point where it was only licensed under the CC, and therefore didn't have to use the the GPL.
Also, I would like to note, that there is quite a complex set of licenses here, and that somebody with more knowledge of all the different licenses might have a better explanation about what is going on.
发布评论
评论（2）
事实上，你的说法并不完全准确。 SemWeb 不仅是 GPL，而且是双重许可的。 Joshua Tauberer 编写的源代码也根据知识共享署名许可获得许可。 由于 ROWLEX 仅依赖于 Joshua 编写的代码，因此知识共享归属许可证允许 ROWLEX 在 L- 下分发通用公共许可证。
Actually, your statement is not completely accurate. SemWeb is not just GPL but dual-licensed. The source code written by Joshua Tauberer is also licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license. Since ROWLEX relies solely on the code Joshua wrote, the Creative Common Attribution license permits ROWLEX to be distributed under L-GPL.
在阅读 Semweb 许可信息后，它声明它目前已根据 GPL 和知识共享署名许可证，但最初它仅根据 CC 署名许可证获得许可。 它还包含根据 LGPL 和 W3C 软件许可证授权的部分。 我假设 Rowlex 在仅获得 CC 许可时就开始使用 Semweb 代码，因此不必使用 GPL。
另外，我想指出，这里有一组相当复杂的许可证，对所有不同许可证有更多了解的人可能会对正在发生的事情有更好的解释。
Upon reading the Semweb licensing information, it states that it is currenly licensed under the GPL and the Creative Commons Attribution license, but that originally it was only licensed under the CC Attribution License. It also contains parts that are licensed under the LGPL, and the W3C Software License. I'm assuming that Rowlex started using the Semweb code at the point where it was only licensed under the CC, and therefore didn't have to use the the GPL.
Also, I would like to note, that there is quite a complex set of licenses here, and that somebody with more knowledge of all the different licenses might have a better explanation about what is going on.