Hi DWN Editors, Your article about LGPLd JARs forcing Java code to be opened/licensed under the LGPL is incorrect. The LGPL on Java libraries works exactly the same as it does for C libraries, Perl modules, or any other language's concept of separate code modules.
It would be nice if something could be done about this (preferrably before next week, when some Java libraries will already have been rereleased with shittier licenses). (And, on principle, I would avoid reporting on something on Slashot ever again.) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00234.html On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 18:47, Henning Makholm wrote: > Hm, do the DWN editors read d-l? An explicit withdrawal would be in > order, I think. If they don't, they'll get this. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
