Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 17:11 schrieb Andrew C. Greenberg:
On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 03:43 AM, Cees de Groot wrote:
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 03:01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
in view of the positions recently taken by FSF with respect to LGPL and Java-based libraries, which has taken the view that clients of "included" Java libraries are virally attached by LGPL. As understood from skimming blogs discussing the issues, Apache foundation has opted to eschew LGPL libraries, in part, because of this FSF gloss.
Of course, this is largely political rather than legal. First, the FSF is bound to give the widest possible interpretation of their own (politically inspired) license; second, the ASF is not bound to go into a public fight with an entity that lots view as a sort of sibling organization.
Trolling: I guess next time they attack squeak-license as viral, because Squeakers see everything as core-parts of squeak? Have some good time trying to correct the misunderstandings then..
FSF clarified: People must be able to modify the library and use it in the application. So for example external jars are ok. Seems some cheaters thought: The LGPL states, if i link to the library i have to publish my library-patches. Java does not link..
Franz (lisp) had similar problems with c-oriented terminology. They addressed a preamble to LGPL here http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html
Then why should we?
Because a lot of condig non-lawyers know its implications, while they have to hire a lawyer again to understand sequakl's license. instead of just clarifiing some words like "linking"
-Volker