Sam Ruby wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 4:30 AM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oops, forgot to reply to 'all'.
On Jan 24, 2008 6:29 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everyone for the detailed interpretation. If Henry understood
our policy correctly, does it mean that it's OK if the build of the
submodule that depends on RXTX doesn't occur automatically but with
some interactive precedure with proper notice?
Thanks,
Trustin
That would not be OK if RXTX were under the GPL, for example. The
current draft makes no distinction between LGPL and GPL. I've heard
statements that LGPL (as of version 2) is OK for C and C-like
programming languages, but not for direct references from languages
like Java, but indirect references through standard interfaces (such
as JDBC) are OK. So far, none of that is reflected in the current
draft, nor would it apply to usage of RXTX by MINA.
I've also heard a statement the the FSF has somehow clarified this for
Java, but can not find any evidence that backs this up. Can anybody
provide a link?
This one, maybe?
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html/view?searchterm=LGPL%20java
-Eero
