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 23:09:38 GMT
At 10:55  22/11/00 -0000, you wrote:
> > >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 
> > licensed  
> > >(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. 
> Meaning you think I' about right, or completely wrong? I don't understand. 

meaning that you be fairly generous with your interpretation of
modification compared to addition. I was under the impression that any
modification or value adding to a LGPL work had to be LGPLed. However the
definition of the difference between modification and addition is fairly
week. Basically to qualify as modification you have to directly modify the
file or directly modify interface/internals. You can even make the LGPL
work uncompilable without a non-LGPL work and still be legit - I was very
surprised about this. 

> > right - but LGPLed code can not be in Apache CVS... 
> Why - because the Apache group will not permit it?  

essentially. Every bit of source code in Apache CVS has to be APLed and
have copyright assigned to Apache.



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

View raw message