On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Conor, > > > > I expect that people are worried about the viral implications of LGPL, I'm worried about it :) If it's LGPL, I can use it at work, but I can't release any code that imports from the LGPL'd jar. And with RMS' 99 article: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html It would seem that it is not in the FSF' interest to clarify the LGPL as far as it applies to Java as they/he only want the LGPL to be used in certain strategic cases. > > 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. How about side-stepping the issue entirely and organising some kind of collation of projects on sourceforge/ibiblio, or even if lgpl is the main problem, setting up a project at savannah to host all the lgpl plugins to asf licenced works? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
