http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/Using_20LGPL_27d_20code
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:16:35 -0500, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Damn, I need to Wiki this :) > > Basically, LGPL is a license written for the C programming language. > While we all agree that its intent is to allow people to freely use > the library, its wording means that the actual application to a > language other than C is up for debate. A lot of this comes down to > whether the term 'linking' means 'import' in Java or not. Early vs > Late linking languages etc. > > Anyways, legal advice given to the ASF is not to be tied to an LGPL > license as the LGPL is feasibly as viral as GPL. This isn't just some > not-invented-here view the ASF have. Lawrence Rosen's latest book on > open-source licensing seems to repeat the view. This means we cannot > have LGPL'd jars in the CVS repository, that we cannot modify > previously LGPL'd code and that we cannot import LGPL'd code in our > import statements. > > The same applies for GPL (to answer Joe's question that yes, GPL is worse). > > I'm hoping that as the months go by next year we'll be able to import > LGPL'd code in our code. GPL will still be out of the question, as > would LGPL in CVS or modifying LGPL; but use of JFreeCharts, Hibernate > and other libraries would be possible. > > So, yep. Dumbster's license seems to be a problem. One path is to > explain this to the author and ask if they can dual-license it under > something like BSD or ASL 2.0. > > Hen > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:04:11 +0100, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A little bit of a digression but I'm reading through the LGPL blurb.. > > > > Can you give a bit more detail on this problem? Just as a matter or > > curiosity. > > > > Mark > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:00:16 +0000, robert burrell donkin > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 15 Nov 2004, at 11:10, Eric Pugh wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > (2) DEENDENCIES > > > > > > > > > > > > The Email component is dependent upon the following external > > > > components for development and use: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > * Dumbster Fake SMTP (Version 1.0.3 or later) - for unit tests > > > > only, not > > > > required for deployment > > > > > > i hate to do this to what is a good proposal but... > > > > > > isn't dumbster LGPL'd...? > > > > > > BaseEmailTestCase imports LGPL'd code and IIRC that's still > > > problematic. (FSF refuse to clarify the situation with regard to java.) > > > > > > - robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
