www-legal-discuss 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 13:44:37 GMT
On Jan 24, 2008 4:30 AM, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops, forgot to reply to 'all'.
> On Jan 24, 2008 6:29 PM, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks everyone for the detailed interpretation.  If Henry understood
> > our policy correctly, does it mean that it's OK if the build of the
> > submodule that depends on RXTX doesn't occur automatically but with
> > some interactive precedure with proper notice?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Trustin

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

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message