On Jan 24, 2008 9:31 AM, Ralph Goers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > That would not be OK if RXTX were under the GPL, for example. The > > current draft makes no distinction between LGPL and GPL. I've heard > > statements that LGPL (as of version 2) is OK for C and C-like > > programming languages, but not for direct references from languages > > like Java, but indirect references through standard interfaces (such > > as JDBC) are OK. So far, none of that is reflected in the current > > draft, nor would it apply to usage of RXTX by MINA. > > > > I've also heard a statement the the FSF has somehow clarified this for > > Java, but can not find any evidence that backs this up. Can anybody > > provide a link? > > > > - Sam Ruby > > > > > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html.
Thanks! > I've had to read this several times. My summary: > 1. Applications which import LGPL libraries need not be licensed under LGPL > 2. The LGPL'd library must be able to be modified or replaced. > 3. The trickiest one - they must be able to reverse engineer your code > to debug their modifications to the LGPL'd library. > 3. If you distribute the LGPL'd library you must also make the source > available. If you don't distribute it then you don't. Excellent summary. > The difference with the GPL is that if the library were under the GPL > then the application using it would be also. - Sam Ruby
