On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hmm ... >>> We have discussed some of the things that must be replaced but we have not >>> drawn a roadmap about it beyond the initial migration list. I think we will >>> have to open BZ issues for those. >>> >>> The gtk/qt issue is rather critcal: I do not think there is previous >>> history among Apache projects depending on them but if we cannot consider >>> those "system provided" libraries it would be a serious setback to an early >>> Apache release. >> >> I would support allowing C/C++ code to link to gtk and/or qt, provided >> we don't distribute gtk or qt themselves. Both are LGPL. The LGPL is >> clear for languages like C, C++. > > Clear in what sense? Dynamic linking and such?
Excellent question. The definition of 'link' is well understood in the context of C/C++. That's all I meant to say. I'll go further and state that what I said I would support is intentionally limited in scope to only gtk and qt. Both are commonly distributed with Linux distributions. Other candidate LGPL licensed dependencies would have to be evaluated separately. - Sam Ruby
