Leo Simons wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:49:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, Leo?
I thought LGPL is ok and GPL not.
Ok - usually I try not to rely on non-ASF-licensed code. ONE license is
the best (over
a couple of).
Heh. Don't ask me for authoritive details. Talk to Cliff Schmidt (our VP
legal).
Depending on your interpretation of the LGPL and the Apache License, code
under these licenses can be used together without the AL code falling under
the LGPL license. The ASF recently switched interpretation to one where
this mixing and matching is possible for java code, too.
However, the ASF doesn't like to ship software for which parts of that
software which are needed for it to function are under terms more restrictive
than the AL (which is the case when you have a non-optional LGPL dependency).
So we have a policy in development (I don't think its ratified yet) to somewhat
constrain such a thing.
As far as we currently stand, it is *OK* to *LINK* to LGPL and not to
redistribute it. There is no board resolution about it yet, but it's
coming (Cliff, hint hint ;-)
So, I suggest that we worry about this only when are ready to ship
something. Also, remember, the act of 'bundling' and 'shipping' is what
constitutes problems for us (details to come in the resolution),
therefore if the user gets it on their own, we are fine. The use of
things like maven to build, since they fetch the jars on their own,
would therefore remove all our legal concerns, yet allow us to keep the
hibernate functionality.
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
