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

issue of JAVA LGPL / BSD licensing ...

From: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:33:42 -0500
Message-ID: <41A29376.6060308@cs.indiana.edu>
To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
CC: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>, Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek@lbl.gov>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, public-xml-binary@w3.org

Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Aleksander Slominski wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You couldn't follow it because the position didn't make any sense. 

> LGPL is just fine for Java.  

do you mind to actually show some proof for it and not just make a 
statement?

show me some facts.

i do not know anything that clarifies all this confusion:

http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/03/07/17/2257224.shtml
http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/2003/07/18.html
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/rubys/archive/2003/07/lgpl_java_links.html
http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=141&thread=7997

> Incompatibility between LGPL and Java is an urban legend. 

so lot of people spent time discussing it for fun?

or maybe because it *is* confusing and needs clarifications ...

> Depending on whose talking, it's based on a misunderstanding of Java, 
> a misunderstanding of the LGPL, or both.

it would help if FSF clearly stated position on this on their website 
(if not in updated license L/GPL 3.0) so it can be used a definitive 
resource and not just rumors like somebody said something  (or heard 
"Brad Kuhn's comments ..." )

i could not find link to the authoritative resource ... anybody had more 
luck?

thanks,

alek

-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:33:59 GMT

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