I feel like I am getting pretty close to the conclusion, all thanks to you guys.
On Jan 24, 2008 11:50 PM, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Indeed. However, is this also agreed within the ASF? I just sounds like we can use whatever LGPL'd libraries without restriction because we almost always don't modify LGPL'd Java library and it's free to reverse engineer or debug ASL'd stuff we distribute. What's in the gray area is whether using Maven to pull LGPL'd JARs or not, which occurs automatically. 1) Should we provide the source code of the LGPL's JAR too in this case? 2) Should we explicitly state that what Maven is going to download is not distributed under ASL but under LGPL? 3) What about transitive dependencies? For example, someone could use Maven to pull a ASL'd JAR which depends on another LGPL'd JAR. He or she will pull the LGPL'd JAR without any proper notice. Simplistic solution would be to move any submodules that depends on LGPL'd library, but the problem still remains outside of the ASF if the submodules are licensed under ASL. I think there needs to be clearer official guideline that works for both inside the foundation and outside the foundation. Am I going too far? :) Thanks, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
