On Friday, August 24, 2001, at 03:00 AM, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:45, Jon Stevens wrote:
>> on 8/23/01 6:12 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> uh-huh. Love to hear those reasons. Event better yet would you provide
>>> evidence where such a problem has occured at Apache - perhaps as a
>>> pointer to email archive?
>>
>> Now you are asking for a precedent. There isn't one because I have always
>> avoided going to battle in one way or another. It hasn't been worth it.
>
> eh ? Quite a few projects at apache use LGPL code or have in the past ...
>
> Besides quite a few Apache projects have violated licenses in past
> (particularly Sun licenses).
>
>> People who release their software under a *GPL license do so either out
>> of
>
> GPL is definetly a not usable here but LGPL is what you talked about. They
> are different licenses with different limitations. LGPL really only sucks
> for
> people who want to do java onto chips (not something we see for many
> jakarta
> projects), it also adds an extra step if you natively compile. Both of
> these
> are due to the irritating relinking clause.
>
>> ignorance (and can be easily convinced to BSD it) or because they truly
>> want a *GPL license (and therefore we need to re-implement it because the
>> fundamental beliefs are different (free vs. open)).
>
> Apaches software is free software (in both senses of word) - it is just
> not
> copyleft.
>
>> For instance, there wasn't a regex package for Java that was under a
>> non-*GPL license. Therefore, I found one and brought it to Jakarta. The
>> same was true for the WebMacro bullshit I had to go through...we created
>> Velocity instead.
>>
>> I'm in the business to make money off of Open Source. I believe in Open,
>> not Free.
>
> Hey - I don't much like copyleft anymore either and I am all for money
> making
> off OSS. I still can't see how your claim that LGPL could cause legal
> issues
> is substantiated though.
>
for what it's worth, apple's lawyers (who are probably pretty good) will
not allow apple to distribute any LGPL'd code within darwin. AFAIK the
major problem is a lack of case law about exactly what the terms in the
LGPL license mean. the free software foundation are not likely to sue -
but a third party with deep pockets (for example m$) could start giving
away all your code for free and let you take them through the courts - a
long and expensive process.
- robert
