On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:08 AM, ext Mark Williams wrote:
> But you /do/ provide the full source of XMLHttpRequest.js, together
> with a means of recombining it with your application (you provide the
> full source, and a build mechanism for openlayers). Anyone could
> substitute their own modified (or
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:23 AM, wrote:
> You presumably looked at 4.d. and decided that OpenLayers fell under 4.d.1?
> With the way we use this library, it's pretty clear to me that we fall under
> 4.d.0:
>
> "0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
> and t
On 2010-04-21, at 9:23 AM, wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:16 AM, ext Paul Spencer wrote:
>
> (We do not use an 'appropriate shared library mechanism for linking with the
> library' -- we build it into our app. If we did require that users linked to
> an external site via
On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:16 AM, ext Paul Spencer wrote:
> I just read through the LGPLv3 and GPL (ugh) in an attempt to understand why
> Roald might think that this license would somehow be bad for OpenLayers and
> also to understand what might happen if, in the future, we find some other
> compon
Ah, thanks for the interpretation Chris. As usual, a very concise explanation
that hits the relevant points. I agree that it would be unwise to burden the
project with LGPL code without serious consideration!
Cheers
Paul
On 2010-04-21, at 9:15 AM, wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:59 AM, ext
Note that since we have obtained his permission to distribute under a less
restrictive license, this is not a problem. However, for my own edification
and for future consideration with this and other open source projects, I'd like
to understand this a little more.
I just read through the LGPLv
On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:59 AM, ext Paul Spencer wrote:
> Bart,
>
> based on my experience in other projects, it should be sufficient to include
> this in a comment at the top of XMLHttpRequest.js with a brief explanation of
> the issue and then we should be good to go.
>
> For the record, I am w
Hi Chris,
no I don't see this as a blocker for 2.9, it's something which can be done
after 2.9 (I was just triggered by somebody reporting the same issue as
#2065 very recently, i.e. in the 2.9 release process, so I did not want to
wait too long with contacting the author).
If you check with John
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 AM, ext bart...@osgis.nl wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> since XMLHttpRequest.js had changed its license from Apache license to
> LGPL (see also http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2065), we have problems
> with rolling in new versions of the library (see also Roald's remark about
>
Hey Paul,
this is Roald's original e-mail on the subject with a reference:
http://openlayers.org/pipermail/dev/2009-April/004792.html
Best regards,
Bart
> Bart,
>
> based on my experience in other projects, it should be sufficient to
> include this in a comment at the top of XMLHttpRequest.js w
Bart,
based on my experience in other projects, it should be sufficient to include
this in a comment at the top of XMLHttpRequest.js with a brief explanation of
the issue and then we should be good to go.
For the record, I am wondering why it is a problem to include LGPL code in
OpenLayers if
11 matches
Mail list logo
