W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-binary@w3.org > November 2004

Re: licensing ... [Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [xml-dev] [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release

From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:43:57 -0500
Message-ID: <41A287CD.6080905@lig.net>
To: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>
Cc: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek@lbl.gov>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, public-xml-binary@w3.org

I think the confusion between LGPL and Java is obviously a 
misunderstanding that will blow over shortly if it hasn't already.  
Clearly, the LGPL was supposed to allow library-like linking.

These are the best discussions I found on the subject:
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123

Professor Eben Moglen who often works for FSF, had this to say:

"2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno

One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in 
situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually modifying 
it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is reliant on a JAR 
that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? I haven't changed the 
JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with my software. The end user 
could just as easily download the JAR themselves, it's just a 
convenience for me to offer it in my package.

Eben:

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules 
of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The 
situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static 
or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in 
order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new 
combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under 
the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code 
had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to 
the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, 
but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of 
"share and share alike.""

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:8560:200408:bllajdgbkdfgkfgifpmf

sdw

Aleksander Slominski wrote:

> Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>
>> The XOM/bnux work is very interesting for several reasons.
>>
>> Aleksander Slominski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Hoschek wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is to announce the nux-1.0beta2 release 
>>>> (http://dsd.lbl.gov/nux/).
>>>>
>>>> Nux is a small, straightforward, and surprisingly effective 
>>>> open-source extension of the  XOM XML library.
>>>>
>>> hi Wolfgang,
>>>
>>> the natural question is: how does it compare to XBIS?
>>>
>>> can it be divorced from XOM?
>>>
>>> in particular LGPL and Apache/BSD are not compatible (it seems nux 
>>> is under BSD and XOM under LGPL ...).
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see why you make this statement.  Something that is LGPL'd 
>> can be used as a subsystem of any other kind of system, including 
>> commercial or BSD licensed software.  
>
>
> not in java. there were very long discussions in apache about dynamic 
> linking of LGPL JARs and as XOM has no non-LGPL API then it is not 
> possible to compile or run nux without XOM right?
>
> anyway i never could really follow why LGPL for C style-linking is OK 
> but LGPL for JARs is not so if you have a definitive FSF resource on 
> that i would like to know it.
>
>> BSD licensed software can generally be used in any circumstance, 
>> including commercial integration, with very little requirements, 
>> mainly consisting of notice and not suing the author.
>
>
> yes under condition that all software is BSD. if you mix GPL with 
> software under any other license then all must be GPL. LGPL is kind of 
> in gray area ...
>
> thanks,
>
> alek
>


-- 
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 00:45:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 1 December 2005 00:07:42 GMT