Wiki

Nuclear Morphology Analysis requires external libraries to run. These can be installed into the ImageJ plugins directory:

Licence details

Library	Licence	Details
weka 3.6.12	GNU General Public License, version 2	http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://weka.wikispaces.com/Can+I+use+WEKA+in+commercial+applications%3F WEKA is licensed under the Gnu General Public license (GPL 2.0 for Weka 3.6 and GPL 3.0 for Weka > 3.7.5), any derivative work must be licensed under the GPL as well.
jcommon 1.0.23	GNU Lesser General Public Licence 2.1 or later	http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html http://www.jfree.org/jcommon/
jfreechart-1.0.19	GNU Lesser General Public Licence	http://www.jfree.org/lgpl.php If you just use the library, you are not required to make your source code available
swingx-all-1.6.4	LGPL-2.1	http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php https://www.java.net/node/686341 http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/439136.html This is the previous version of the LGPL: a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with nonfree modules. It is compatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3.
commons-math3-3.4.1	Apache License, Version 2.0	You must say if you have changed anything from the original version the APL'ed code that you using http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/135296/can-a-gplv2-program-rely-on-apache-licensed-libraries ASF (Apache Software Foundation) doesn't like the idea of ASFv2 code being any part of a system that uses GPLv2, based on the limited information of your case and my understanding of the various FOSS licenses: regardless of whether the umbrella project has GPLv2, or the umbrella project is GPLv2, attempting to include ASFv2. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax permissive licenses. Compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.
MorphoLibJ 1.3.2	GNU Lesser General Public Licence v3
JFreeSVG 3.2	GNU General Public Licence v3

Overview of compatability

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/227639/can-i-use-apache-software-license-version-2-0-and-gnu-lgpl-3-licence-plugins-in

#!text

Firstly, neither APL, GPL or LGPL make any restrictions on what you can use software to do inside your organization. The restrictions are all on code that is distributed outside of your organization.

     For GPL the restriction is that if you incorporate GPL'ed code into your own software, AND you then distribute your software outside of your organization, THEN you must make the source code available under the terms of the GPL or a compatible open source license.
So if you use GPL'ed code in your application and you distribute it, then your application must be open source ... or else you are violating the license.

    For LGPL, the restriction (see above) only applies to the source-code of the LGPL'ed library itself; i.e. if you change the library. If you just use the library, you are not required to make your source code available.
There is also a restriction that the LGPL code in your application must be replaceable by the user of your code. That means (in effect) that if you distribute your code as binaries only, then you cannot statically link your code that the library. You must use dynamic linking.

    For APL 2, the only significant restriction is that you must say if you have changed anything from the original version the APL'ed code that you using.


Finally, just to make it clear, neither GPL, LPGL or APL places any restriction on your purpose in using the software. And that includes whether your purpose is to make money. They just constrain the way you can make money ... and in the case of LGPL and APL, the constraint is pretty minimal.