Re: APL & LGPL & GPL

2001-10-28 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others > may have been private), that it is OK to license the software GPL as > long as the used APL libraries are part of the distribution on which > it is installed, ri

Re: APL & LGPL & GPL

2001-10-28 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > > What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others may have > > been private), > > that it is OK to license the software GPL as long as the used APL libraries > > are part of the > > distribution on which it is i

Re: APL & LGPL & GPL

2001-10-28 Thread David Starner
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others may have > been private), > that it is OK to license the software GPL as long as the used APL libraries > are part of the > distribution on which it is installed,

java-policy questions

2001-10-28 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
Hi, I have some minor questions/suggestions regarding the Java policy http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html> > Programs must have executable(s) in /usr/bin and be executable. Is it acceptable for a daemon that is controlled via a /etc/init.d script to do without the wrapper in /usr/bin

Re: APL & LGPL & GPL

2001-10-28 Thread Egon Willighagen
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:04:47AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > > Is it "legal" to have (I am thinking Java here): > > > > - A GPL-ed program that uses > > a LPGL-ed libraries that uses > > a "Apache Public License"-ed library > > > > The be precise, i am considering packaging a GPL-ed to