Hi Richard,
Rickard �berg wrote:
R�> Hi!
R�> 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.
R�> This sure is educating. :-) Well, after having read the LGPL license I
R�> must agree with Peter: section 2 is (as it was in GPL) a killer in terms
R�> of "larger work". It most certainly makes what we do illegal, at least
R�> AFAICT but OTOH IANAL. :-/ Here's the biggie in my mind "But when you
R�> distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
R�> the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
R�> License,...". So, any redistribution of jBoss including other non-GPL
R�> non-LGPL libraries must be covered by the LGPL license. Which breaks the
R�> license for the other stuff we are using.
Hey, section 2 runs about *modification* of the Library: if you modify
the library, your work must also be under LGPL.
Can anybody point the place in LGPL (it is
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html, right?)
where the statement "redistribution including other non-GPL libraries
must be covered by the LGPL license" can be concluded from?
Of course, if jBoss (let's say "jBoss core", i.e. the part of jBoss
distribution which is under LGPL) cannot *contain* non-GPL library,
but it can need non-GPL libraries for work.
Again, "contain" issues...
Best regards,
Oleg
