You can include the dependency OR "Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library". This is already handled by the JVM btw.
I really could care less, I really just enjoy the argument. I see your summary statement that "LGPL is viral w/ java" as spreading inaccurate FUD. I didn't see anything viral about the license. Maybe I'm missing something. I have read it over and over and the most radical interpretation I could come up with is you have to include the source of "works that use the library" and thats only for executables. It says you can distribute these under your own terms in plain english. That means you don't have to give it away! It also never mentions derivatives of these works. So if someone had a problem with the terms they could program out the LGPL stuff later on. Who the hell is Dave Thomas anyway? The fat guy on the Wendy's commercials? Is he even a lawyer? What makes his opinion relevant? He could be an intern stuck answering emails. His email consisted of two lines, which basically boiled down to "Go read section 6 and stop bothering me" Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "POI Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:25 PM Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation So the problem is that OTHERS would have to make THEIR code include the LGPL dependency and THUS would also fall under section 6. So we would be ASL + LGPL Section 6 licensed. (Which if that�s a useful distinction to you versus just saying "Requires us to LGPL" then fine...I don't see much difference ;-) ). The ASL license allows you to NOT follow section 6. Effectively linking to LGPL "virally" changes our license. -Andy On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> DT: >> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL. > > Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states > "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms > permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse > engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's > response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache license > fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6 > that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL license. > > I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this way. > It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code > with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following > > 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library. > 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the > users computer at runtime (java already handles this). > 3)blah blah blah > 4)blah blah ... > > You get the point. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
