- From: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:33:42 -0500
- 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 UTC