Gregor Mückl skrev: > Now the much more interesting question is: if ant-contrib is only a build > time dependency that is not included in the source code of Qt Jambi, is (a) > the distributed source code in violation of the requirement of being the > "full Source Code" according to the LGPL and (b) would this need to change > the license of Qt Jambi also? >
My two cents (or however large the amount ends up being. Licensing debates have a tendency to become quite expensive =)): We already have an optional dependency on ant, which is also Apache-licensed, in Qt Jambi's build scripts. Adding an optional dependency on ant-contrib (optional in the sense that you can choose to build Qt Jambi without using ant) in addition seems entirely harmless to me. This has already been through legal scrutiny when the code was licensed under LGPL, so I think it's safe to assume that such a dependency will not alter the license of the resulting binary. -- Esklil _______________________________________________ Qt-jambi-interest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-jambi-interest
