incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: License implications of build-time or test-time dependencies?
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:12:19 GMT
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.

- Sam Ruby

Mime
View raw message