Ceki G�lc� wrote:
You have that backwards.I echo Andrew's reservations. The reasons behind the restriction of LGPLed imports are unclear and apparently undocumented. Such a crucial matter deserves to be properly documented. If the restriction cannot be justified, then it should be lifted.
LGPL has special rules for 'link'. What exactly is the concept of a 'link' in Java? If A imports B and A and B are not in the same Java package (but perhaps share some similar names in the first three qualifiers) are they in the same 'library' or not?
Java has been around for some time, and you would think that this would some clarification of how these concepts map to Java would have been provided. Can we read something into the fact that it has not? More importantly would you be willing to risk the value of your reputation and some important software assets on the chance that a jury of 12 people would agree with what we decided to assign to the meaning of terms used in the LGPL license?
It is not up to the ASF to define what the FSF means when they say 'link' and 'library' in the context on Java.
I would encourage general discussion of this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] This topic has a much wider applicability than Jakarta.I urge all Apache members and committers to carefully follow licensing related discussions. The matter is too important to be blindly deferred to the wisdom of the board. Think a little on yourself. Read the BSD license. Understand its sprit. Read the Apache license. See how much or how little it differs.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
