incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Herbert Dürr <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: License implications of build-time or test-time dependencies?
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:01:24 GMT
On 2011/10/20 11:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni<pfg@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>> Hmm ...
>>>> We have discussed some of the things that must be replaced but we have not
drawn a roadmap about it beyond the initial migration list. I think we will have to open BZ
issues for those.
>>>>
>>>> The gtk/qt issue is rather critcal: I do not think there is previous history
among Apache projects depending on them but if we cannot consider those "system provided"
libraries it would be a serious setback to an early Apache release.
>>>
>>> I would support allowing C/C++ code to link to gtk and/or qt, provided
>>> we don't distribute gtk or qt themselves.  Both are LGPL.  The LGPL is
>>> clear for languages like C, C++.
>>
>> Clear in what sense?  Dynamic linking and such?
>
> Excellent question.  The definition of 'link' is well understood in
> the context of C/C++.  That's all I meant to say.
>
> I'll go further and state that what I said I would support is
> intentionally limited in scope to only gtk and qt.  Both are commonly
> distributed with Linux distributions.  Other candidate LGPL licensed
> dependencies would have to be evaluated separately.

Who does the evaluation? The PPMC members of the AOOo project?

The next LGPL library that should be evaluated in that context is CUPS 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS) which is quite essential for 
printing on many Unix platforms.

Herbert

Mime
View raw message