Ryan, the tone was inappropriate. I disagree with your generalized characterization of me besides this isn't a blog entry.
My motivation in clarifying this was originally to convince the ASF board to allow us to use LGPL jars! So that�s me spreading FUD... Mr. Thomas is on the FSF staff. He stated that section 6 applies to Java imports. To me this is LGPL being viral. Ask Praveen how he would feel about his hard work going into a library which required his end product to allow reverse engineering and modification. In any case. I will -1 any LGPLs on the basis that the board has stated we cannot use them unless the FSF states they impose no restrictions on the end users of our work product. I would like the LGPL to be compatible with free use of ASL software, but it isn't. I don't like it, but it isn't. I'm still miffed, if you need to get out this aggression I'd prefer you do it in a blog of your own and keep it off of this list (polite disagreement or asking "who is this norvalis guy?" is fine). I take a great deal of pride in the fact that our community has developed without the kind of anathema and venom that prevails in other communities and I will continue to strive to keep it that way. This isn't the first time you've had trouble with this. Let me rephrase your email to an appropriate tone: "Andy, I don't agree with what you're saying about the LGPL. Who is the person who replied? What does this mean specifically? I think you're over-generalizing when you say the LGPL is viral and would like to understand more. I interpret the LGPL to say bla bla bla." On 7/16/03 8:32 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]
