On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 18:36 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 19/05/07, Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > sebb wrote: > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > > > > > shows the proposed rules, which don't seem to be particularly > > > restrictive for LGPL. > > > > Excuse me, Sebastian, this page lists the LGPL under Category X. X for > > "must not > > apply to any software within an Apache product". And you find that "not > > particularly restrictive"? I'm a bit puzzled now, to say the least. > > > > Anyway, I didn't mean to kick off yet another discussion about including > > JCIFS > > in Apache or not. I think all committers agree that we avoid the hell of > > problems by doing such an integration outside of Apache. > > > > Quote: > > "Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be included in Apache > products, although they may be listed as system requirements or > distributed elsewhere as optional works." > > Seems to me that it should not be too difficult to make JCIFS an optional > work. >
Folks I _personally_ find the requirement of conditional compilation of LGPL dependent code too restrictive and complicating the release process, which is already complex enough. I _personally_ would very much rather prefer simply to host those optional classes outside ASF. Oleg > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
