Conor,
I expect that people are worried about the viral implications of LGPL, although I am not sure how that applies with a jar. One of the long standing issues with the FSF licenses is how to apply them in a Java environment.
Totally agree. I'm OK if the answer is "No, you can't have code that links to LGPL in ASF CVS". As I said on the Ant list, LGPL is written using C-think (headers, object code, etc). It is not clear how to interpret this in a Java context, especially when the LGPL itself is fuzzy about some things. For example, when talking about whether code which links to LGPL becomes a derivative work it says
"The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law."
We're trying to get alternate licensing from any LGPL code. So far we haven't had too much of a problem getting such licenses, but we'll see.
If you look at this message, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=104393719401495&w=2
from the thread I mentioned, you'll see that this is not always forthcoming. I certainly respect their right to stick to the licence of their choice.
Conor
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
