ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: enhydra make and xmlc tasks
Date Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:22:37 GMT
At 07:43  22/11/00 -0000, you wrote:
>OK, the GPL makes very well known provisions about having to make all 
>distrubted changes to a piece of code also available under the GPL. It also 
>requires that all code that *links to*  (which in Java effectively means
>in any way") be "free software" - which 95% of the time means it must also

>LGPL is almost exactly the same, except it removes the linking part.
Anyone is 
>free to call the code that is LGPL'd regardless of how their code is
>(anything from GPL to $1,0)0,000 dollars a seat is fine).

I used to think this but it is not exactly true - I thought LGPL was a lot
stronger than it was.

>So from the point of view of something like ANT - if a task where to be
>I'd think that was fine - any changes made to that task would have to be 
>released under the LGPL, but it wouldn't be breaking the terms of the
>to use it - nor could it somehow infect ant unless you did something really 
>stupid like steal parts of it and use it elsewhere in ant, but that isn't 
>going to happen...

right - but LGPLed code can not be in Apache CVS...

>Only thing is copyright assignment, but that's a problem anyway, even if 
>you've been ignoring it. I assume ant is under the Apache license... do 
>contributors retain copyright under this license. 

Copyright assignment has nothing to do with the license. Apache requires
copyright assignment to Apache in the same way that most large opensource
groups do (ie Contributors are effectively given a license to do
anything they want with their own code developed prior to contribution but
Apache needs to be free to use the code in any way it pleases.



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

View raw message