commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <>
Subject Re: Netcomponents - Q about license
Date Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:50:38 GMT

On Vendredi, d├ęce 27, 2002, at 04:02 Europe/Brussels, Daniel F. 
Savarese wrote:
> When I read stuff like this (Kenneth's comments, not Jeff's), it 
> scares me
> because it means people use software without reading and understanding
> the license and also without understanding what the software does.  
> Jeff
> already addressed the licensing part, and I can understand that even
> obvious licensing questions need to be asked to be absolutely sure one 
> is
> interpreting the license correctly.

I entirely agree with you that it is scary, however, for a newbie, I do 
understand it is not that easy to grasp both the usage of the library 
and the license issues. The page:
shows one license type, somewhat personal, whereas the Apache 
Foundation ownership seems to be present at some places...

This is yet another example which shows that licenses need to be 
supported by programs that interprete them and should have more space 
at least within browsers, packages (like jars) and tools that import or 
declare dependencies (in particular, something like Maven project's 
dependency elements).

The question of Kenneth is not that elementary: the only way I could 
answer it would be: if you get the Apache license, you must quote the 
usage, if you get the LGPL license, you have to republish your 
As far as I know, the example code is also covered by the license so 
Daniel's remark should only be interpreted as "look further, there are 
better uses than the example"...

I would actually love more of these questions in the Apache lists, very 
few people care about licenses and sometimes you really get surprises 
(not with LGPL or Apache though, but from Sun's licenses for example).


View raw message