The AFL has the same effect with the LGPL as it does with the GPL. I contend it is also fully compatible. All are free licenses.
The issue has nothing to do with linking. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Oliver > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL > > > Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > > Richard, > > > > Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion > that the AFL > > is incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong > on the law > > and wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public > > response. > > So I think I understand the controvery regarding GPL and why > GPL and ASL > (aka AFL) don't work together. What about LGPL and ASL in > the situation > of Java? Apache has a long standing ban on LGPL being used in Java > projects and I want to know if its justified. > > I asked if Eben Moglen's comments in slashdot on the subject were > sufficient to lift the ban and Roy Fielding responded: > > " > No. What the FSF needs to say is that inclusion of the > external interface names (methods, filenames, imports, etc.) > defined by an LGPL jar file, so that a non-LGPL jar can make > calls to the LGPL jar's implementation, does not cause the > including work to be derived from the LGPL work even though > java uses late-binding by name (requiring that names be > copied into the derived executable), and thus does not (in > and of itself) cause the package as a whole to be restricted > to distribution as (L)GPL or as open source per section 6 of > the LGPL. " > > Most authors of Java software using the LGPL license intend to allow > linking (basically the use of the java "import" of classes in > their jar > file). Who is right? Apache with their insistance that the LGPL is > "viral" for Java software or the masses who think LGPLing their code > causes modifiers to contribute but linking/use to be > uninhibited even to > proprietary software? (where the term "link" is not wholely > appropriate > for Java, I interperate it to mean including a jar in the > classpath at > compile-time and runtime and having import statement naming classes > inside of a jar) > > On a personal note, clearing this up would help me greatly as I would > like to use Trove4J (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/) in the Apache > project I founded (http://jakarta.apache.org/poi) instead of our own > collection classes. Secondly, I am considering releasing an upcoming > Java codebase in LGPL or GPL, and while I understand the full > ramifications of GPL, I do not feel I fully understand the > ramifications > of LGPL with regards to this issue. > > I would greatly appreciate if Mr. Stallman and Mr. Rosen > could provide a > definitive answer on this. > > Thank you, > > Andrew C. Oliver > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
