You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com> on 2005/02/11 01:36:20 UTC
Re: Which licence?
At my work, we want to incorporate an LGPL'ed product (Hibernate). We
asked for approval 3 months ago, and the matter has been moving
through the system ever since... Our CEO and the Senior Management
Team will consider the matter on Monday. I hope they make a decision
one way or the other soon.
I got to spend an hour with one of our lawyers today going over
sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL, and I can tell you that to me the
wording is vague and subject to interpretation. The more I read the
license, the more confused I became as to my company's obligations if
we distribute any software that relies on LGPL software.... and I am
lobbying hard in favor of the software.
It's up to you if you want to apply the LGPL to your own software. I
just want you to be aware that it will limit who can use your
software. I suggest that you read the license carefully, especially
sections 5 and 6, before you make your decision.
Either way, thank you for being generous and sharing your code with others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com>.
Now you tell me ;-)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:09:01 -0500, Erik Hatcher
<er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> Save yourself the trouble, John, and go with Cayenne instead :)
>
> Erik
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Save yourself the trouble, John, and go with Cayenne instead :)
Erik
On Feb 10, 2005, at 7:36 PM, John Reynolds wrote:
> At my work, we want to incorporate an LGPL'ed product (Hibernate). We
> asked for approval 3 months ago, and the matter has been moving
> through the system ever since... Our CEO and the Senior Management
> Team will consider the matter on Monday. I hope they make a decision
> one way or the other soon.
>
> I got to spend an hour with one of our lawyers today going over
> sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL, and I can tell you that to me the
> wording is vague and subject to interpretation. The more I read the
> license, the more confused I became as to my company's obligations if
> we distribute any software that relies on LGPL software.... and I am
> lobbying hard in favor of the software.
>
> It's up to you if you want to apply the LGPL to your own software. I
> just want you to be aware that it will limit who can use your
> software. I suggest that you read the license carefully, especially
> sections 5 and 6, before you make your decision.
>
> Either way, thank you for being generous and sharing your code with
> others.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Brett Randall <ja...@gmail.com>.
Yes, funny world isn't. I'm not sure how an LGPL licence applied to
Java code could be tested without utter confusion resulting in lots of
lawyers, given that the licence uses terms that try to be generic but
cannot apply to all of today's technologies.
My musings ... check this out in LGPL w.r.t. Java:
* However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library
What's an executable ... ahhh, that would be the JVM, since it is the
only thing my OS recognises as an executable. But JARs, no, they are
binary, but not even object code ... hmmm. :)
* When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
that is part of the Library,
Header files? Obviously written by C programmers :)
It only gets better:
* If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
functions (ten lines or less in length)
More C. Show me how to apply this to Java. Or is there a specific
version of LGPL that applies to Java - not that I've seen.
I've never really had a problem with LGPL, just musing that it is
funny that so many lines of code can be licenced under a document that
it seems could never apply technically ... show me when I ever
distributed an executable :)
Cheers
Brett
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:36:20 -0600, John Reynolds
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At my work, we want to incorporate an LGPL'ed product (Hibernate). We
> asked for approval 3 months ago, and the matter has been moving
> through the system ever since... Our CEO and the Senior Management
> Team will consider the matter on Monday. I hope they make a decision
> one way or the other soon.
>
> I got to spend an hour with one of our lawyers today going over
> sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL, and I can tell you that to me the
> wording is vague and subject to interpretation. The more I read the
> license, the more confused I became as to my company's obligations if
> we distribute any software that relies on LGPL software.... and I am
> lobbying hard in favor of the software.
>
> It's up to you if you want to apply the LGPL to your own software. I
> just want you to be aware that it will limit who can use your
> software. I suggest that you read the license carefully, especially
> sections 5 and 6, before you make your decision.
>
> Either way, thank you for being generous and sharing your code with others.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org