Andy, don't get bent out of shape because I passionately disagree with you. Just because I am a part of your project does not mean that I have to agree with everything you say. I have my own brain and I use it I am sorry that you find that beneath me. I only attacked the facts of your argument. I didn't realize you were taking it so personally, I thought you could deal with the "tone" because you use the "tone" quite often when you attack other people's arguments in your blog. Still friends? :-)
Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "POI Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:44 PM Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation I don't enjoy the argument in fact the very tone of this email is rather upsetting and beneath you. I'm not at the moment in a mood to defend myself or clarify anything because I'm rather miffed. Learn to write emails that don't look like flames and you'll find working in open source a lot easier...hell you'll find working on any distributed project a lot easier. -Andy On 7/16/03 7:04 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]
