On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Thank you very much for this explanation. It should help explain to authors > why we are asking them to provide their LGPL code under a different open > source license. Bear in mind that although, i.e the ASF, may be allowed to do so and distribute it from our site; the people on the receiving end are -not- allowed to pass that what they got from us on to anyone else. Or in other words; we are no longer in the land of legal black-and-whites; but we are now talking about policy. How inportant is it for us that when you get soome code from the ASF, in any way shape or for, you are then allowed to give it to anyone else without further thoughd or requirements. And the ASF has always considered that crucial. > Many believe that LGPL works differently than you've > explained. Again - we are no talking policy and no longer do/cannot-do from a license perspective anymore. Those who believe so generally do not look at the redistribution in the second or third step. I personally think it is important to look at that. For ideologic reasons; I want it to be as easy and unencumbered as possible, and for pragmatic reasons; what happens if some (source) code is lost, if a URL dies. Dw --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
