ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: enhydra make and xmlc tasks
Date Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:45:49 GMT
At 09:37  22/11/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Pete,
>
>A fair while ago, William G Thompson submitted a task for xmlc. He had
>made some changes to xmlc for it to work with ant and he included this
>updated xmlc.jar file. This file includes gnu.regexp.* classes.

actually now I remember ... took ages for that mail to download ;)

>At the time, I had heard that there were some issues with APL/GPL/LGPL,
>so I asked him if this was an issue. He stated that the gnu.regexp
>classes were LGPL so he thought there was no problem. I wasn't so sure
>and asked the list (and Duncan) for clarification. I didn't get much
>feedback.

I think the LGPL is fine if it is in binary form only. Turbine/James/Cocoon
etc rely on LGPLed libraries.

>I don't whether Enhydra is using these classes or just William and what
>that all means for an ant xmlc task. I'm not even sure about the
>interaction between the APL and the Enhydra licence. 

I *think* that it is fine if to "use" xmlc if we do not modify it. If there
needs to be modifications made the xmlc then they need to be done outside
of apache CVS (preferrably at enhydra thou if not at somewhere else). Thou
IANAL ;) So if the task can be written just using a prebuilt xmlc binary it
would be considered a "Larger Work" and only the xmlc is covered by
OPL/Enhydra license.

Thats my guess but it would be good to seek clarification.

Cheers,

Pete

*------------------------------------------------------*
| Despite your efforts to be a romantic hero, you will |
| gradually evolve into a postmodern plot device.      |
*------------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message