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