On Wednesday 12 February 2003 22:30, Ceki Gülcü 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
One of the issues with LGPL that I know the Apache people is "on about" is that it is written for C/C++ software, where the "static linking against" is pretty obvious, but the dynamicity of Java makes this very blur. In Cocoon, this discussion was up a couple of weeks ago, and conclusion was that it was not even possible to use the Java API with a "dummy implementation" (so it compiles) and letting the user download the "real thing", since the API classes must be "work" or "derived work", and a chain of effects is triggered. Some senior Apache member relayed the ASF formal stance, and LGPL is unfortunately NOT in line with the Apache / BSD styled licenses and it is not allowed to incorporate LGPL dependencies of any kind in ASF projects. However, I think most smaller/independent developers in OpenSource don't give a damn. "I do some coding, use it anyway you want, but I will not support, nor held liable...bla bla..." kind of attitude. Unfortunately, they grab the nearest generic one, often (L)GPL, since those doesn't require any changes. APL needs either you donate code, or create your own derivative license (is the license OSS?), and I think BSD also needs "legal work" for the "little guy". One possible way is that the ASF project has an APL based API/SPI, and a "little guy project" is placed on SourceForge, which bridge the ASF project with the (L)GPL project. Then the ASF side is non-dependent and the SourceForge project is outside of ASF and can be (L)GPL. Complex for the user, but sometimes warranted... Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
