On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Ian Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 October 2011 16:01, Herbert Dürr <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2011/10/20 11:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS>) >> which is quite essential for printing on many Unix platforms. >> >> Herbert >> > > I don't want to sound too negative, but if the whole of CUPS and all its > printer definition files have to be re-written (and that is only one > dependency) isn't saying an Apache licensed release in early new year a bit > optimistic? >
No one is talking about rewriting at this point. We're discussing whether the dependency is well-known enough that we can justify it as a system dependency. Since Linux is a copyleft OS, almost anything we do to interact with the system will need to interact with such code. -Rob > -- > Ian > > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) > > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 > > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and > Wales. >
