on 11/10/2000 10:33 AM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry from the crosspost
>
>
> So we asked Mr Stallman to state the obvious, the man obliged.
State what exactly? Oh wait...you put that at the bottom of your
email...ug...
> it was a waste of time/energy
What was a waste of time/energy? Marc, your emails need to be more clearly
stated.
> 1- Using our library in ANY software, without modification, does not trigger
> LGPL coverage.
What license is your library under?
> 2- Developing our libraries and linking to non Free software is permitted
> with LGPL, they must be "aware of it"
Huh? I need clarity here.
> Thank you and good code....
WHAT?
> PS: Stallman, besides being a amazingly educated man (carries extensive
> conversations in perfect french) is actually a caring person and for someone
> his age (what 50 now?) amazingly plugged into all things software. The
> future of java seems to interest him greatly. He wants to see the
> progression of "Free" software in java (the "libre" part) as much as we do,
> and I found that interesting.
Of course he wants to see "free java software"...that isn't anything
different than his current goals.
However, he doesn't necessarily care about Open Source software. Free and
Open are two different things and I'm not sure you understand the difference
Marc.
Free == GPL
Open Source == BSD
Free means that you are bound by terms of the license to keep the software
freely available.
Open source means that you can use the source code for whatever you want and
are not bound by the license to keep it freely available.
> There were 2 questions (my questions are indented)
>
> is integrating the library with other work (without any modification to
> the
> Library) a "modification of the Library" in case of the LGPL?
>
> No, it is not. It is just using the library. The whole reason for
> the LGPL is to give permission for this sort of thing in a way that
> the GPL would not permit.
No shit.
> can we link our libraries LGPL to non-LGPL code and license that under
> LGPL
> to third parties
>
> What you can do is release your library under the LGPL and suggest
> that people use it together with other nonfree libraries. The LGPL
> permits such combined usage.
>
> However, people who want to use the two together in their programs
> will have to be aware they are using both parts.
No shit.
> PS2: Even the GPL was legal with exceptions :))) but we agreed that it was
> an interpretation of the GPL. I believe the LGPL gives us best of both
> worlds
> 1- usage ok in products
> 2- feedback comes to us
Right.
It sounds like you are going to switch JBoss to the LGPL. I'm very happy for
you to do that as that is something that not only myself, but MANY other
people (I know Brian told you to use either the LGPL or MPL) have been
telling you to do for a long time now based on your two conditions above.
I'm glad you are finally listening.
thanks,
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
