Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 56614 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2008 16:38:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2008 16:38:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 17504 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2008 16:38:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 17146 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2008 16:38:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 17131 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2008 16:38:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:38:13 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.128.96.105] (HELO mail.bortnet.com) (209.128.96.105) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:37:25 +0000 Received: from [192.168.10.129] (adsl-66-51-196-164.dslextreme.com [66.51.196.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bortnet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEDC2FDB15 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:35:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47DBFB55.1070906@dslextreme.com> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:37:41 -0700 From: Ralph Goers Reply-To: rgoers@apache.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Legal Discuss Subject: Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?) References: <781069.88884.qm@web54406.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <781069.88884.qm@web54406.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > Ah, it' not about finding loopholes Sam, it's about > understanding the language in the current draft. > The draft talks about writing bridge code to category > X works as something that is OK for our projects to > do. If they do write brigde code to GPL'd works, > then it sounds like there's going to be an awful lot > of GPL licensed software in our repository if we > accept the FSF's position. I don't like that > prospect, personally, but if the ultimate > answer is to make GPL dependencies verboten, > I guess that's ok. > > That is the major difference between the GPL and LGPL. With the LGPL you can write bridge code, with GPL you cannot. The only way to really get around that is if the API you are writing to came first and was non-GPL and then someone creates an implementation under a GPL license. For example, if JBoss AS was under GPL I doubt anyone writing applications that strictly conform to J2EE would care. Ralkph --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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