cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin A. Burton" <>
Subject Re: LGPL + APL = not good!
Date Wed, 19 Apr 2000 05:29:51 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> People,
> the PMC has voted on "indications" about license mixing.
> We agreed that incorporating LGPL code for a java project might be
> dangerous for a simple reason:
>  - it's not legally clear the difference between code that belongs to
> the library and code that does not.
> This means:
>  - it would be legally hard to defend code that has ships with APL +
> LGPL code.
> While I partially disagree with this vision (if you distribute a
> library.jar file that includes both class and source code, that's
> clearly a library!), I totally agreed on the votation that using xGPL
> code is asking for trouble, expecially since _many_ of the companies
> involved around here did exactly for the lack of xGPL stuff around.

Define legally hard?  I mean what are they going to do?  Say that APL
code is all of a sudden APL code?
> Given that many project were donated to us and are still pushed by some
> big companies, it would be totally stupid to avoid further contact and
> collaboration on a particular project because of legal fear due to a
> simple library that wasn't available in BSD form.
> NOTE: the PMC has the right to "indicate" what a project should do, but
> has no right (ASAIK) to "force" a project to do it. Nevertheless, I
> agree that while technical reasons can have a digital answer (yes/no,
> works/doesn't-work), legal opinions are completely anologic, expecially
> without examples of real-life trials.

Could we see the text of this vote?  It is hard to agree with a decision
like this without any data.


Kevin A Burton (
Message to SUN:  "Please Open Source Java!"
The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be
scorched to the earth. Their code will be open until the end of days.

View raw message