Il giorno 18/ott/04, alle 08:45, Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
No one has ever demonstrated that doing an "import" on classes that are
under the LGPL obliges you to license your code under the (L)GPL.
The FSF and ASF legal counsel have both said it does.
Really? My understanding of this is that the issue is still open:
"As FSF has not yet clarified/answered questions with regard to this, nor has the LGPL been updated to clarify such - the murkyness around this makes us do the 'safe' thing; which is to avoid it for the time beeing."
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing
" LGPL No No The LGPL's intent is that it could be usable, but the legalese is too poor"
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/LicenceIssues
I'd use the Apache license without fear in this case (as a matter of fact, I do).
That is of course your perogative, and I am sure I have violated, or
potentially violated, the (L)GPL as well at times, but one should be more
concerned when a larger community is at stake.
We're talking about cocoondev.org or other repositories, not the ASF, here. Cocoondev.org was created also with the intent of hosting code that imports LGPL code.
Just to be crystal clear: what I meant to say is that if you, as individual developer, decide to do an "import net.sf.hibernate.*" in a Java source file, you can still put an APL header on top of your source file (as long as you don't put that file in an ASF repo). Since your (and Hibernate developers') take on this is a matter of opinion, yours is as valid as anyone else's, until the matter is resolved in court, eventually.
Of course, if Microsoft decides to sue you on behalf of the original copyright holder, that it's your problem.
IANAL
Ugo
-- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
