On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 12:35, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > LGPL has other implications towards proprietary software, and that's
> > what the authors specifically want to protect, so that's a hard line.
> >
> > Wouldn't the Classpath Exception [1] be appropriate here? This
> >
Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> LGPL has other implications towards proprietary software, and that's
> what the authors specifically want to protect, so that's a hard line.
>
> Wouldn't the Classpath Exception [1] be appropriate here? This
> wouldn't require the interpretation of a new legal text.
>
> [1]
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 05:20:48PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 16:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Would the maintainer consider switching the whole thing to LGPLv3?
> > > > This would preserve the freeness of his code and be much less hassle
> > > > for
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 16:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> > > Would the maintainer consider switching the whole thing to LGPLv3?
> > > This would preserve the freeness of his code and be much less hassle
> > > for everyone involved, with no interpretation of new legal texts required.
>
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 16:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:50:47AM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 16:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:50:47AM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > >
