On 2011/10/20 11:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby<ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni<p...@apache.org> 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.
Who does the evaluation? The PPMC members of the AOOo project?
The next LGPL library that should be evaluated in that context is CUPS
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS) which is quite essential for
printing on many Unix platforms.
Herbert
