All, Perhaps I'm dense for looking for a technological solution to an ideological problem, but can't this be resolved with an abstraction layer?
For example, Apache doesn't seem to mind the dependency on javax.xml.*. Nevertheless, this allows one to use GNU-licensed libraries with Apache products (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/jaxp/). Couldn't a simple solution be that each time one wants to add a GNU feature to an Apache project, they simply whip up a little abstraction layer, license that layer under the APL, or whatever javax.xml.* is licensed under, and then call it a day? The GPL is not a virus. It is a license, and, just like any other license, it comes with restrictions. I don't see why those restrictions comprise a justification for separating different groups of public software developers from each other, resulting in the duplication of effort, expending time and (scarce) resources. BTW, there are many other examples of abstraction layers that provide a separation between code written under different licenses that nevertheless need to interoperate, not the least of which is the OS interface itself. - Matt -----Original Message----- From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:54 AM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: Open source licensing (was RE: Configuration GUI) I guess I'll have to take a closer look myself and digest some of these issues before commenting further. thanks for the pointer to the discussion. Jake At 03:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote: >Having just looked at the LGPL more closely, it may be almost as viral as >the GPL. > >See also http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=104477225500003&r=1&w=2 > > >At 08:14 12.02.2003 -0600, you wrote: > >>Hi Ceki, >> >>I concur with your sentiments. >> >>I don't know the details of Apache's dislike for the LGPL licence but, on >>the face of it, it seems just silly. It is obvious to anyone and >>everyone what intent an author has when he/she puts their library under >>LGPL. It is meant to be freely useable and freely distributable with no >>intent to limit ones options in usage of the library (unlike the >>GPL). Apache needs to work this out. How can they, on the one hand, >>allow utilization of Sun's JDK which is more restrictive than any open >>source license and, on the other hand, restrict the use of an, obviously, >>open license like LGPL? This sort of in-fighting doesn't help anyone in >>the open source community and probably gives companies like Microsoft >>pretty good chuckle (more like a belly laugh!). >> >>What a ridiculous problem to have! This is not what open source >>licensing is about. >> >>Jake >> >>At 11:55 AM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote: >>>My suggestion would be to use BSD or MIT. Obviously, Apache license is >>>more than fine. Also check out the Open Software License. >>>http://opensource.org is a good source of further information. >>> >>>LPGL is apparently not acceptable although I would not be able to >>>explain the reasons with a straight face. > >-- >Ceki > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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]
