Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Moreover, writing a detailed mock for a LGPL'ed library means copying
the library's structure. Legally, can't this be considered as some
derivative work, requiring the mocks to be also LGPL'ed ? I don't know.
I'm pretty sure that could be considered derivative work, and even more
sure that the (L)GPL will go at length _not_ being explicit about it, so
that it will be up to personal interpretation. This means uncertainty,
and the policy over here appears to: if it isn't explicitly allowed, it
is disallowed.
The solution seems to me some changes to the build system so that
problematic libraries are downloaded from a remote location when needed.
Yep. Some of these libraries can be redistributable in _binary_ form,
but cannot be stored in CVS. They should be included in the release
distro by the release manager, who downloaded the libraries locally. But
they cannot be stored in ASF CVS for the ease of compilation.
Time to consider moving to Maven or Centipede ?
That would ease some of the issues, yes.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
