Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
Agreed and respected.Rewriting the code to conform to a license is a poor choice IMO.
Although, there is a real problem: the LGPL says that you are forced to put changes back into the LGPL license only if you modify the library, but not the code that links to it.
Now, what is a java library?
The real issue with LGPL is with its imprecision: there potentially no limit about where the 'gpl infection' can get thru in your code.
Personally, I don't want to give the FSF the possibility to come after us because of that.
I designed the blocks concept also to get around legal problems because the xGPL works with 'redistribution', not 'installation'.
You can even install a GPL cocoon block on top of Cocoon and as long as we don't ship any of that inside Cocoon, we are fine and the user who does is fine as well.
The block concept will work as a condom around GPL virality (yes, RMS, I don't like your imposed freedom, I want 'metafreedom' the freedom to choose my flavor of it and to dislike yours, thank you)
Today, even moch classes are unsafe sex for us, because moch classes rewrite parts that are *included* in the library so they are part of the library itself, so they have to be LGPL-ed.
At the end, do not worry, we are not trying to paint the world with Apache licenses (like the FSF does) so we'll work to make it possible to make the software interoperate.
But we need blocks for that and we need a serious avalon container for that and we need a serious community around it... or we simply screw them and build our own container.
oh well...
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
