> >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.
Meaning you think I' about right, or completely wrong? I don't understand.
> right - but LGPLed code can not be in Apache CVS...
Why - because the Apache group will not permit it?
There's nothing in the LGPL license what would preclude it. Restrictions only kick in when you distribute modified code (at which point you must make the modifications available under the LGPL). There aren't any restrictions on where you store code. That's like saying have a file of LGPL'd code on your hard disk in the same directory as a file of APL'd code is a problem...
> Copyright assignment has nothing to do with the license.
> Apache requires
> copyright assignment to Apache in the same way that most
> large opensource
OK. That's a suitable solution to that problem.
Andrew Thompson :: A little bigger on the inside
Software Developer :: Quidnunc
I am the cat who walks through walls, all places and all times are alike to me.