OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-) LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To quote from the GNU itself:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs." This is why the GNU C library is LGPL: "This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us." A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary. That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though. >From the GPL FAQ: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. (note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there) and: How does the LGPL work with Java? See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for details. It works as designed, intended, and expected. /dev/mrg On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project > (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that > AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is > willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them, > here is a link: > > https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=1210 > > While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet, > besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from > it myself :-) > > Andrus >
