Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <3E709D37.3090902@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:01:11 -0500
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
References: <001001c2e96d$5bbbda20$6401a8c0@ALMIGHTYBEAST>
In-Reply-To: <001001c2e96d$5bbbda20$6401a8c0@ALMIGHTYBEAST>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree with you howard.  It just doesn't matter that I agree.  The 
trouble is the wording doesn't make it clear in Java althought I agree 
the intent of the license is what you say.

I asked Sam Ruby about this and he said something to the effect of 
without clarification would you want to leave it up to twelve random 
people?

He does have a point.  Look at section 6 in the LGPL..  thats the main 
part in dispute.

So lets say IBM included Tapestry in Websphere.. Yes they can release it 
under whatever license they want, but do they have to release their 
source? 

-Andy

>See, that's the part I don't get.  I know this is tedious if you've been
>through this, but I don't see how the LGPL is viral (the GPL is definitely
>viral, by design).
>If all you are doing is restributing an LGPL package without modification, I
>just don't see how it affects your license.  As I understand it, the LGPL
>and the ASL are pretty much the same, until you modify and redistribute.
>
>--
>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>  
>