Hi!
Peter Donald wrote:
> At 05:39 3/11/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >Peter I recommend you go talk to Brian
> >Behlendorf, he was one to recommend this, along with Stallman, Bruce Perens
> >and the lawyers that go with it...
>
> well all I can say is you probably did not convey to them an acurate
> representation of the situation. You solved the problem of whether other
> libraries can link to jBoss but there still remains the problem of whether
> jBoss can link to other non-GPL compatable libraries. As it stands an
> unmodified LGPL can not - you choose to ignore this and link against a
> variety of different libraries that are not GPL compatable.
This sure is educating. :-) Well, after having read the LGPL license I
must agree with Peter: section 2 is (as it was in GPL) a killer in terms
of "larger work". It most certainly makes what we do illegal, at least
AFAICT but OTOH IANAL. :-/ Here's the biggie in my mind "But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License,...". So, any redistribution of jBoss including other non-GPL
non-LGPL libraries must be covered by the LGPL license. Which breaks the
license for the other stuff we are using.
I must agree with Aaron on this one: BSD is the only way we can do this
legally.
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
