Sam Ruby wrote:
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?
- Sam Ruby
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html.
I've had to read this several times. My summary:
1. Applications which import LGPL libraries need not be licensed under LGPL
2. The LGPL'd library must be able to be modified or replaced.
3. The trickiest one - they must be able to reverse engineer your code
to debug their modifications to the LGPL'd library.
3. If you distribute the LGPL'd library you must also make the source
available. If you don't distribute it then you don't.
The difference with the GPL is that if the library were under the GPL
then the application using it would be also.
