Ah, I must be going blind. Sorry for the noise. Axton
On Jan 2, 2008 10:20 AM, Wesley Schwengle < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 02.01.08 09:33 Axton wrote: > > Hi Axton, > > > The 7.1 java api includes the RemoteTea ONC/RPC library, which is > released > > in the GNU GPL v2 or later. The GPL license requires that the source of > any > > software that distributes this library have it's source made publicly > > available. > > > > While all Java classes are dynamically loaded at runtime, directly > > referenced classes are also used at compile time, and thus might be > > considered in violation of the GPL. Am I missing something here? > > On the main site (http://remotetea.sourceforge.net/) it states the > following: > > The Remote Tea project delivers a fully fledged implementation of the > ONC/RPC protocol (Wikipedia on ONC/RPC) for the Java 2/1.1 platforms > รข- and all this under the GNU LGPL. No native (binary) libraries are > required, since Remote Tea is made of 100% Java. > > Since its LGPL, they can use the library: > > "Applications which link to LGPL libraries need not be released under > the LGPL. Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of > the LGPL: allow new versions of the library to be linked with the > application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this." > (from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html). > > > To quote the first link: > > So, if an application links to a library licensed under the GPL, the > application too > > must be licensed under the GPL. By contrast, libraries licensed under > the > > GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) may be linked to proprietary > > applications. > > The last sentence says it all. > > > The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an application > uses is > > distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file. Applications use > Java's > > "import" functionality to access classes from these libraries. When the > > application is compiled, function signatures are checked against the > > library, creating a link. The application is then generally a derivative > > work of the library. So, the copyright holder for the library must > authorize > > distribution of the work. The LGPL permits this distribution." > > This quote is somewhat countering what is stated earlier. However, it > looks like they are talking about GPL, and then state that LPGL permits > distribution.. I can't explain it otherwise looking. > > They distribute the application (i'm looking into the V7.1 patchlevel 1 > tarball for Solaris) with a LGPL license: > arsystem/common/license/en/gnu_lesser_gp_license.txt > I think they have thought about it and distribute it correctly. Although > they could > have mentioned the specific library which is used under LGPL, as they did > with the other licenses found under > arsystem/common/license/<lang>/: > > apache_axis_license.txt > apache_crimson_license.txt > apache_log4j_license.txt > apache_xerces_license.txt > arsystem_license.txt > gnu_lesser_gp_license.txt > mbox_javamail_license.txt > net-snmp_license.txt > > Perhaps you could mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] regarding this issue, however, > my personal opinion is that they can distribute it without any problem. > > Cheers, > Wesley > > -- > Orange Nederland Breedband BV, http://www.orange.nl & http://www.equant.nl&; > http://www.euronet.nl > Wesley Schwengle, System Administrator, IT Operations - Business Systems > Muiderstraat 1, P.o. BOX 10241 , 1001 EE Amsterdam > T:+31 (0)20 535 52 55, F:+31 (0)20 535 57 49 > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
