On Vendredi, d�ce 27, 2002, at 04:02 Europe/Brussels, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
When I read stuff like this (Kenneth's comments, not Jeff's), it scares meI entirely agree with you that it is scary, however, for a newbie, I do understand it is not that easy to grasp both the usage of the library and the license issues. The page:
because it means people use software without reading and understanding
the license and also without understanding what the software does. Jeff
already addressed the licensing part, and I can understand that even
obvious licensing questions need to be asked to be absolutely sure one is
interpreting the license correctly.
http://www.savarese.org/oro/downloads/NetComponentsLicense.html
shows one license type, somewhat personal, whereas the Apache Foundation ownership seems to be present at some places...
This is yet another example which shows that licenses need to be supported by programs that interprete them and should have more space at least within browsers, packages (like jars) and tools that import or declare dependencies (in particular, something like Maven project's dependency elements).
The question of Kenneth is not that elementary: the only way I could answer it would be: if you get the Apache license, you must quote the usage, if you get the LGPL license, you have to republish your modification.
As far as I know, the example code is also covered by the license so Daniel's remark should only be interpreted as "look further, there are better uses than the example"...
I would actually love more of these questions in the Apache lists, very few people care about licenses and sometimes you really get surprises (not with LGPL or Apache though, but from Sun's licenses for example).
Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
