On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Hmm ... >>> We have discussed some of the things that must be replaced but we have not >>> drawn a roadmap about it beyond the initial migration list. I think we will >>> have to open BZ issues for those. >>> >>> The gtk/qt issue is rather critcal: I do not think there is previous >>> history among Apache projects depending on them but if we cannot consider >>> those "system provided" libraries it would be a serious setback to an early >>> Apache release. >> >> I would support allowing C/C++ code to link to gtk and/or qt, provided >> we don't distribute gtk or qt themselves. Both are LGPL. The LGPL is >> clear for languages like C, C++. >> > > Clear in what sense? Dynamic linking and such?
Before Version 3, the meaning of the LGPL - when applied to many dynamic and interpreted languages - was sufficiently debatable to pose a definite legal risk. It would be surprising but not unreasonable for a court to rule that the license was strong (not weak) copyleft for some languages. Robert
