2008/3/19, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall at gmail.com>:
> 2008/3/19, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si>:
>
> > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>  >  >> Do I interpret the LGPL correctly that the Seaside Swazoo adapter
>  >  >> (subclass of a a Swazoo class) would need to be LGPL as well?
>  >  >
>  >  > No, Site is pretty much the interface that Swazoo exposes to its users;
>  >  > you cannot *use* Swazoo without subclassing Site.  Subclassing
>  >  > HeaderField would be another story.
>  >
>  >
>  > We had just recently a semi-official and a bit broader (and very simple
>  >  actually) interpretation. Using it on Swazoo:  LGPL is covered if you
>  >  extend Swazoo by some other package as is in your case, Philippe. Reason
>  >  IMHO is simple: borders between Swazoo and code it uses it is preserved
>  >  and clear.
>
>
> Sorry I have some problems parsing this. I need a clear and official
>  response whether the Swazoo Seaside Adapter needs to be under LGPL. If
>  not what changes we are allowed to make without it having to move to
>  LGPL.

*bump*
I need a clear, official and legal waterproof answer on this.

Cheers
Philippe