commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Promote Email to Commons Proper
Date Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:16:35 GMT
Damn, I need to Wiki this :)

Basically, LGPL is a license written for the C programming language.
While we all agree that its intent is to allow people to freely use
the library, its wording means that the actual application to a
language other than C is up for debate. A lot of this comes down to
whether the term 'linking' means 'import' in Java or not. Early vs
Late linking languages etc.

Anyways, legal advice given to the ASF is not to be tied to an LGPL
license as the LGPL is feasibly as viral as GPL. This isn't just some
not-invented-here view the ASF have. Lawrence Rosen's latest book on
open-source licensing seems to repeat the view. This means we cannot
have LGPL'd jars in the CVS repository, that we cannot modify
previously LGPL'd code and that we cannot import LGPL'd code in our
import statements.

The same applies for GPL (to answer Joe's question that yes, GPL is worse).

I'm hoping that as the months go by next year we'll be able to import
LGPL'd code in our code. GPL will still be out of the question, as
would LGPL in CVS or modifying LGPL; but use of JFreeCharts, Hibernate
and other libraries would be possible.

So, yep. Dumbster's license seems to be a problem. One path is to
explain this to the author and ask if they can dual-license it under
something like BSD or ASL 2.0.

Hen

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:04:11 +0100, Mark Lowe <melowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> A little bit of a digression but I'm reading through the LGPL blurb..
> 
> Can you give a bit more detail on this problem? Just as a matter or curiosity.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:00:16 +0000, robert burrell donkin
> <robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 15 Nov 2004, at 11:10, Eric Pugh wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > (2) DEENDENCIES
> 
> 
> > >
> > > The Email component is dependent upon the following external
> > > components for development and use:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >     * Dumbster Fake SMTP (Version 1.0.3 or later) - for unit tests
> > > only, not
> > > required for deployment
> >
> > i hate to do this to what is a good proposal but...
> >
> > isn't dumbster LGPL'd...?
> >
> > BaseEmailTestCase imports LGPL'd code and IIRC that's still
> > problematic. (FSF refuse to clarify the situation with regard to java.)
> >
> > - robert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message