Great idea Alex. I am travelling today, but I will send something to them tonight when I get to my hotel.
Thanks Chris !
yeah, I think Alex is right, we should ask firstname.lastname@example.org to see if this is a
potential problem or not.
Blind guess is that if we have to include a LGPL lib to the distribution
package, we are FU.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Could you run this by legal@ to see what the final verdict is?
> On Jan 6, 2008 6:44 PM, Chris Custine <email@example.com--> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> I have spoken with a few people about checking out OpenInstaller
> in the past few weeks and I wanted to give a quick little bit of
> information. I think the OpenInstaller project would be very cool
> for building up some consistent cross-platform installers using a
> single toolkit. However, while I was reviewing the licensing of
> the dependencies this weekend, I realized that the packager embeds
> at least one LGPL product inside the installer package (primarily
> CHARVA which looks like the tool used to create text based
> installers). This means that to ship installers based on this
> toolkit, we would be shipping LGPL libs embedded in the installer
> toolkit. So at this point I am not sure if there is any point in
> continuing down that path, but if anyone has any opinions
> otherwise let me know.
> The alternative for now is to continue to expand the current
> installers to additional specific platform packaging (Debian and
> Sun Pkg manager are frequently requested), which is something I
> was trying to help us avoid since maintenance and consistency of
> the packages requires a fair bit of time and interest, neither of
> which are in abundance.
> I have started reviewing the current installers and should have
> some of the current issues cleaned up by next weekend, but I can't
> guarantee that I have the bandwidth to learn how to create the deb
> and Sun pkg installers any time soon so if anyone else wants to
> lend a hand with that it would be appreciated.