Fw: FAQ Hibernate and JDO

[dion]

More FYI
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:  http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/

- Forwarded by dIon Gillard/Multitask Consulting/AU on 11/08/2003 
11:14 AM -

Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/08/2003 07:14:23 AM:

  As far as I can see, doing an import (which I understand to simply 
mean
  referring to a class and using its methods) does not create a 
  derivative
 
 We've already gone over this many times.  Java doesn't work that way.
 It isn't sufficient to read the LGPL (intended for static compilation)
 and then do a mental translation to what any sensible person thinks it
 should say for a late-bound-by-name language like Java.  If you just
 read the text as is, linking by name does cause it to be a derived work
 covered by section 6 because the module and method names have to be
 copied into the executable. The FSF has confirmed that interpretation,
 which is consistent with their licenses not being sensible in the
 first place.
 
 Serge, licensing the API using a ASF/BSD/MIT/Artistic-style license
 is sufficient to allow ASF java code to import those names.  I would
 still caution against creating a dependency on the presence of an
 LGPL work, but as long as the API is licensed such that others can
 create alternative implementations it should be okay.
 
 There are also ways to use LGPL libraries such that the core code
 is invoking a generic API rather than the API covered by the LGPL,
 but I assume Maven already knows about that.
 
 Roy
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Re: FAQ Hibernate and JDO

[Kevin O'Neill]

 We've already gone over this many times.  Java doesn't work that way.
 It isn't sufficient to read the LGPL (intended for static compilation)
 and then do a mental translation to what any sensible person thinks it
 should say for a late-bound-by-name language like Java.  If you just
 read the text as is, linking by name does cause it to be a derived work
 covered by section 6 because the module and method names have to be
 copied into the executable. The FSF has confirmed that interpretation,
 which is consistent with their licenses not being sensible in the first
 place.

Here's my take. The determiniation of the class that is used is not done
until runtime. Therefor it's not linked full stop. The compilation of the
object just nominates a symbol the implementation of that symbol is left
until runtime. For example I don't know when I compile my class if String
I don't know if Sun implementation, the IBM implementation or the GNU
classpath implementation is going to be used at runtime.

-k.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]