So GWT distribution includes JFreeChart which is LGPL. Problem would
be here, Allan, something wrong related to section 4 of the license ?
On 8 avr, 07:15, Ian Petersen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Ian Petersen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Bambury wrote:
> >> If
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Ian Petersen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Bambury wrote:
>> If you *don't* release a product under a certain licence, then how can it be
>> possibly be a concern if the product doesn't comply to the licence it isn't
>> released under?
>
> I think
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Bambury wrote:
> If you *don't* release a product under a certain licence, then how can it be
> possibly be a concern if the product doesn't comply to the licence it isn't
> released under?
I think you've just summarized the irrelevance of this whole thread.
The original question was whether or not GWT was in violation of the LGPL,
which it would only be if GWT utilized a LGPL component without following
the license.
At that point, RMS would not care (or at least, would not be in a position
to do anything about it). The only people at that point that
I know *nothing* about licensing, but I've been following this, and
I apologise if it's a stupid question but...
If you *don't* release a product under a certain licence, then how can it be
possibly be a concern if the product doesn't comply to the licence it isn't
released under?
Ian
http://exam
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, ginger_ninja wrote:
> What a farce. Who cares if it violates the LGPL (besides perhaps RMS)?
That's a ridiculous comment. Because GWT is released under the Apache
license, I don't understand how this conversation even got started but
if, hypothetically, GWT _did_
What a farce. Who cares if it violates the LGPL (besides perhaps RMS)?
GWT is release under the Apache v2.0 License. The two are completely
separate from each other. About the only common heritage they share is
the fact that they're OSI approved.
On Apr 8, 12:18 am, Robert Hanson wrote:
> There
There is also an about.txt[html] with the GWT distribution.
Here are the notable bits:
| This product includes software developed by:
| - The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
|- Tomcat (http://tomcat.apache.org/) with modifications
|- Tapestry (http://tapestry.apache
It says : "Could not locate 'about.html' in installation
directory." :-p
On 7 avr, 13:10, Miguel Ping wrote:
> Just click the 'about' button on the hosted mode browser (the bg
> window)
>
> On Apr 7, 9:43 am, "Miles T." wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 10:52 pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 4
Just click the 'about' button on the hosted mode browser (the bg
window)
On Apr 7, 9:43 am, "Miles T." wrote:
> On Apr 6, 10:52 pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 4:27 pm, allan wrote:
>
> > The LGPL does not require source, it is only one of a myriad of
> > options to comply with it.
>
On Apr 6, 10:52 pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Apr 6, 4:27 pm, allan wrote:
>
>
> The LGPL does not require source, it is only one of a myriad of
> options to comply with it.
I think (but not sure) I've read somewhere a discussion with a FSF guy
saying that the other options were not appliable t
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Ian Petersen wrote:
>
> Isn't GWT released under the Apache license? I don't think it's
> possible for GWT to violate the GPL. Of course, I'm not a lawyer
Yes it s released as Apache. Of course it's possible for it to
violate the GPL (it doesn't as far as OI
You've stated some very bold claims. How did you become so convinced of
this violation and the need to address it?
Are you the "Beginning Rails" author?
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:27 PM, allan wrote:
>
> LGPL/GPL have the obligation to provide source with any binary
> distributions. Source can b
Isn't GWT released under the Apache license? I don't think it's
possible for GWT to violate the GPL. Of course, I'm not a lawyer
Ian
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM, allan wrote:
>
> LGPL/GPL have the obligation to provide source with any binary
> distributions. Source can be provided dire
On Apr 6, 4:27 pm, allan wrote:
> LGPL/GPL have the obligation to provide source with any binary
> distributions. Source can be provided directly with the binaries or in
> an offer, made available to the public for 3 years.
No, this is true of works using the GPL, but not of works using the
LG
Last time i checked the source code is with the binary. everything is
in the jar files.
On Apr 6, 1:27 pm, allan wrote:
> LGPL/GPL have the obligation to provide source with any binary
> distributions. Source can be provided directly with the binaries or in
> an offer, made available to the publ
LGPL/GPL have the obligation to provide source with any binary
distributions. Source can be provided directly with the binaries or in
an offer, made available to the public for 3 years.
You cannot fulfill the obligation by pointing to a 3rd party download
site for the source. Go ask Cisco and ot
17 matches
Mail list logo
