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: LGPL software behind an isolation layer
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:01:38 GMT
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ceki Gulcu<ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> We are aware of the FSF's position on LGPL and Java:
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html
>>
>> Getting them to reiterate their position won't change the answer to
>> LEGAL-63.
>
> You are assuming that they will just re-iterate their position on
> Java. But what if they say something beyond what you would expect? But
> that is going in circles...

I'm assuming that they are going to say that the conditions and terms
that they put in the LGPL were intentionally put in there.  Nothing
obligates anybody to select that license, but those that do accept the
conditions specified in that license and the consequences of that
decision.

I will suggest that you take a look at this visual aide:

  http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png

Note how all the arrows are one way.

We want our code to be considered a universal donor.  The FSF has
different goals.  I understand those goals.  I personally benefit from
those goals.  But in this one case, those goals are in conflict with
being what I refer to as a universal donor, and what Jim refers to as
wanting to provide a "safe" and "brainless" choice.

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message