mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Status of dependency on LGPL'd library (Was: Re: [Legal] Why is this LGPL notice file in our SVN?)
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:50:08 GMT
On Jan 24, 2008 9:31 AM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > That would not be OK if RXTX were under the GPL, for example.  The
> > current draft makes no distinction between LGPL and GPL.  I've heard
> > statements that LGPL (as of version 2) is OK for C and C-like
> > programming languages, but not for direct references from languages
> > like Java, but indirect references through standard interfaces (such
> > as JDBC) are OK.  So far, none of that is reflected in the current
> > draft, nor would it apply to usage of RXTX by MINA.
> >
> > I've also heard a statement the the FSF has somehow clarified this for
> > Java, but can not find any evidence that backs this up.  Can anybody
> > provide a link?
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html.

Thanks!

> I've had to read this several times. My summary:
> 1. Applications which import LGPL libraries need not be licensed under LGPL
> 2. The LGPL'd library must be able to be modified or replaced.
> 3. The trickiest one - they must be able to reverse engineer your code
> to debug their modifications to the LGPL'd library.
> 3. If you distribute the LGPL'd library you must also make the source
> available. If you don't distribute it then you don't.

Excellent summary.

> The difference with the GPL is that if the library were under the GPL
> then the application using it would be also.

- Sam Ruby

Mime
View raw message