On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:55PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer to > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in doubt. > > * zlib1 -- Zlib license > * libxml2 -- MIT license > * GNU libiconv -- LGPL > * SDL -- Zlib license > * SDL_Image -- Zlib license > > > And Brane's suggestion > > would work in any case, even with (L)GPL bits. Hosting it outside and > > letting > > developers/users to pull them in on their own is pretty much bullet-proof. > > It's not quite bulletproof in the case of libraries. Optional LGPL > libraries and GPL build tools, yes. Optional GPL libraries, it > depends. Mandatory GPL or LGPL library dependencies are probably > trouble.
Yes. All I said was about optional depedencies. Sorry - should've been clearer. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
