www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: Classpath Licensing
Date Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:25:29 GMT
Nic,

Thank you for the explanation.  I am cc'ing others to pass on your
explanation.  Hopefully this can put a few of the licensing concerns in
these specific cases to rest, but if there is a need for any further
clarification required, I hope that the ASF Board will contact you directly
as necessary.

	-- Noel

-----Original Message-----
From: nferrier@pooh-sticks-bridge.tapsellferrier.co.uk
[mailto:nferrier@pooh-sticks-bridge.tapsellferrier.co.uk]On Behalf Of
Nic Ferrier
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:44
To: Noel J. Bergman
Cc: Chris Burdess
Subject: Re: Classpath Licensing


"Noel J. Bergman" <noel@devtech.com> writes:

> Serge:
> The Classpath author adds an addendum to allow bundling of this library
> into an executable, but that still won't allow us to distribute jars in
> CVS or downloadable with source builds (never mind Java doesn't have
> executables).  ibiblio would still be in violation of the license, as
> would CVSWeb, CVS, and anything that allowed these Jars to be downloaded
> independently.

This is not correct. The exception allows Apache (or any) code to
object link to ClasspathX code.

Distributing the jar file is not a problem.


Noel said:
> By the way, if you are curious about the LGPL, I understand that one of
the
> problems with the LGPL is this clause: "When a "work that uses the
Library"
> uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object
> code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the
> source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the
> work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a
library.
> The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law."
>
> Because the FSF has thus far declined to clarify the picture for Java, the
> preceding clause is interpreted that simply an import could be construed
to
> contaminate the importing class.

The FSF is clear on the issue. You can object link LGPLed Java with
other code without special permission. This is because there is no
textual inclusion.

The GPL+exception btw is well understood on this side of the fence
because it is the licence Guile has used for many years to protect
the source code but not preventing linking to other code.


Nic


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message