I echo Andrew's reservations. The reasons behind the restriction of
LGPLed imports are unclear and apparently undocumented. Such a crucial
matter deserves to be properly documented. If the restriction cannot
be justified, then it should be lifted.
I urge all Apache members and committers to
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I echo Andrew's reservations. The reasons behind the restriction of
LGPLed imports are unclear and apparently undocumented. Such a crucial
matter deserves to be properly documented. If the restriction cannot
be justified, then it should be lifted.
You have that backwards.
At 07:21 12.02.2003 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
LGPL has special rules for 'link'. What exactly is the concept of a
'link' in Java? If A imports B and A and B are not in the same Java
package (but perhaps share some similar names in the first three
qualifiers) are they in the same 'library' or
No, it is not up to the ASF. However, has the ASF attempted to clarify
the matter with the FSF? Why not ask the FSF if importing java classes
is considered as derivative work or simply as work that uses the
library?
In the absence of a clear response from the FSF, there is no doubt that
it
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 07:21 12.02.2003 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
LGPL has special rules for 'link'. What exactly is the concept of a
'link' in Java? If A imports B and A and B are not in the same Java
package (but perhaps share some similar names in the first three
qualifiers) are they in the
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
No, it is not up to the ASF. However, has the ASF attempted to clarify
the matter with the FSF? Why not ask the FSF if importing java classes
is considered as derivative work or simply as work that uses the
library?
In the absence of a clear response from the FSF,
I will do this as well. Thanks.
-Andy
A better approach would be to send the e-mail to
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/
-Andy
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
No, it is not up to the ASF. However, has the ASF attempted to clarify the
matter with the FSF? Why not ask the FSF if importing java classes is
considered as derivative work or simply as work that uses the library?
It doesn't really matter. There are restrictions imposed on a 'work that
It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members
are the legal
*owners* of the software that is available under the Apache
Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to
becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one
or more projects. It seems
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I've never heard this other interperatation outside of the ASF. I'll
put more research into the issue and get back to you.
I know that all of the developers that use LGPL that I know of think
that the jar binaries can be used with no problem at all in any type
of
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
Define link.
If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already
seen the following:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL
On 10/2/03 4:05 Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members
are the legal
*owners* of the software that is available under the Apache
Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to
becoming an ASF member, as opposed to
Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do
derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or
GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no
longer open source (by OSD anyway)?
This is a strange discussion thread.
On Mon,
No there are plenty of works derived from Apache
projects. Apache code may be freely modified or
redistributed, but as per the Apache license:
The end-user documentation included with
[redistributions of Apache code], if any,
must include the following acknowlegement:
This product
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Timothy Halloran wrote:
Date: 10 Feb 2003 13:43:24 -0500
From: Timothy Halloran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Licensing again.
Does this mean the ASF has taken away
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
Define link.
If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already
seen the following:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442
I'd like to state my preference that this ASF policy be changed in the
near future. I prefer to be able to collaborate freely with other
opensource developers. I find this policy needlessly obstructs this
abillity. I understand that IBM and Sun (referring to Sam's earlier
explanation) have
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I'd like to state my preference that this ASF policy be changed in the
near future.
[snip]
... introducting LGPL
dependencies does not prevent this, it only prevents them from forking
that dependency.
That is not my understanding. Is this simply your opinion, or
At 11:22 AM 9/02/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I'd like to state my preference that this ASF policy be changed in the
near future.
[snip]
... introducting LGPL dependencies does not prevent this, it only
prevents them from forking that dependency.
That is not my
That is not my understanding. Is this simply your opinion, or can you
substantiate this? I know people, including people on the ASF board,
legal council, and others who I respect that have come to a different
conclusion.
I've never heard this other interperatation outside of the ASF. I'll
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
ASF members that wish to be more directly involved in this issue can
subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before anyone asks, yes, this is a
subscriber moderated list.
Note that I don't object to such a list being that way. :-)
I do :-) ( last time I checked - it was
Ditto plus some,
Seeing the license issues discussed is also of interest to end users who
are under that license. And for list members are faced with similar
issues in other projects.
Costin Manolache wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
ASF members that wish to be more directly involved in this
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Ellis Teer wrote:
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 18:41:54 -0800
From: Ellis Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Licensing again.
Ditto plus some,
Seeing the license issues discussed
Andrew C. Oliver wrote, On 10/02/2003 1.31:
That is not my understanding. Is this simply your opinion, or can you
substantiate this? I know people, including people on the ASF board,
legal council, and others who I respect that have come to a different
conclusion.
I've never heard this
24 matches
Mail list logo
