You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> on 2003/07/16 14:12:12 UTC
Re: [Followup] RE: Possibly Include HTMLParser Jar in contrib
code?
You cannot. Though the FSF has stated that the Apache interpretation was
correct and that importing classes from LGPL jar files in Java does indeed
cause the "viral clause" to apply to Java.
Please stop saying "lift the code" or other things that imply violating the
copyright.
Under no circumstances can any LGPL code be used as it would require us to
LGPL our code per section 6 of the LGPL license and the statement I received
from the Free Software Foundation's Dave Turner (the man behind
licensing@fsf.org):
"
Me:
> Brett Smith referred me to you regarding a question regarding the Lesser Gnu
> Public License (LGPL) in regards to Java. It is the interpretation of most
> of the open/free software communities that the use of a "jar" file by a
> piece of software linked via a Java "import" statement does not bind the
> linking work under the terms of the LGPL. The Apache Software Foundation,
> presently takes a more conservative view and thus projects of the ASF are
> not allowed to link/distribute LGPL programs into Java projects of the
> foundation.
DT:
This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
"
In short, Sam was right, I was wrong.
-Andy
On 7/16/03 4:55 AM, "EPugh@upstate.com" <EP...@upstate.com> wrote:
> Sorry I haven't been on the list more, been traveling the last week. At any
> rate, Andy, did you ever get a resolution to including the HTMLParser Jar?
>
> Should I just submit a code change the mimics the code that I need from
> HTMLParser, I mean, it is just a long list of values being populated into a
> Map! That is all I really want, versus sophisticated translation of
> character set logic or something...
>
> Thanks for your efforts...
> eric
>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by Rainer Klute <ra...@epost.de>.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:55:20 -0500 "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Andy, I wrote a several pages long email that I decided not to send. I
> apologized already and you are pushing the issue. YOU are making this
> personal not me. YOU are implying that I don't know how to behave. If you
> accept my apology and apologize for comments in your last email we can move
> past this. Otherwise this is going to get real ugly.
Ryan, I read your e-mails to the list and could find anything that could justify Andy being upset. You were dealing with facts and arguments and there was nothing to be taken personally. Hopefully this does not get ugly - we had this once already.
Regarding the argumentation itself, I also disagree with Andy and the Board and share Ryan's view. The LGPL (other than the GPL) has been created exactly with the goal in mind that we would like it to have. Simply read what the license says and don't figure out any interpretations. The LGPL's wording is clear enough.
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH
Dipl.-Inform.
Rainer Klute E-Mail: klute@rainer-klute.de
Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824
D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
>I'm still miffed, if you need to get out this aggression I'd prefer you do
Andy, I wrote a several pages long email that I decided not to send. I
apologized already and you are pushing the issue. YOU are making this
personal not me. YOU are implying that I don't know how to behave. If you
accept my apology and apologize for comments in your last email we can move
past this. Otherwise this is going to get real ugly.
Ryan
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Ryan, the tone was inappropriate. I disagree with your generalized
characterization of me besides this isn't a blog entry.
My motivation in clarifying this was originally to convince the ASF board to
allow us to use LGPL jars! So that¹s me spreading FUD...
Mr. Thomas is on the FSF staff. He stated that section 6 applies to Java
imports. To me this is LGPL being viral. Ask Praveen how he would feel
about his hard work going into a library which required his end product to
allow reverse engineering and modification. In any case. I will -1 any
LGPLs on the basis that the board has stated we cannot use them unless the
FSF states they impose no restrictions on the end users of our work product.
I would like the LGPL to be compatible with free use of ASL software, but it
isn't. I don't like it, but it isn't.
I'm still miffed, if you need to get out this aggression I'd prefer you do
it in a blog of your own and keep it off of this list (polite disagreement
or asking "who is this norvalis guy?" is fine). I take a great deal of
pride in the fact that our community has developed without the kind of
anathema and venom that prevails in other communities and I will continue to
strive to keep it that way. This isn't the first time you've had trouble
with this.
Let me rephrase your email to an appropriate tone:
"Andy, I don't agree with what you're saying about the LGPL. Who is the
person who replied? What does this mean specifically? I think you're
over-generalizing when you say the LGPL is viral and would like to
understand more. I interpret the LGPL to say bla bla bla."
On 7/16/03 8:32 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Andy, don't get bent out of shape because I passionately disagree with you.
> Just because I am a part of your project does not mean that I have to agree
> with everything you say. I have my own brain and I use it I am sorry that
> you find that beneath me. I only attacked the facts of your argument. I
> didn't realize you were taking it so personally, I thought you could deal
> with the "tone" because you use the "tone" quite often when you attack other
> people's arguments in your blog. Still friends? :-)
>
> Ryan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
> To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
>
>
> I don't enjoy the argument in fact the very tone of this email is rather
> upsetting and beneath you. I'm not at the moment in a mood to defend myself
> or clarify anything because I'm rather miffed. Learn to write emails that
> don't look like flames and you'll find working in open source a lot
> easier...hell you'll find working on any distributed project a lot easier.
>
> -Andy
>
> On 7/16/03 7:04 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> You can include the dependency OR "Use a suitable shared library mechanism
>> for linking with the Library". This is already handled by the JVM btw.
>>
>> I really could care less, I really just enjoy the argument. I see your
>> summary statement that "LGPL is viral w/ java" as spreading inaccurate
> FUD.
>> I didn't see anything viral about the license. Maybe I'm missing
> something.
>> I have read it over and over and the most radical interpretation I could
>> come up with is you have to include the source of "works that use the
>> library" and thats only for executables. It says you can distribute these
>> under your own terms in plain english. That means you don't have to give
> it
>> away! It also never mentions derivatives of these works. So if someone had
> a
>> problem with the terms they could program out the LGPL stuff later on.
>>
>> Who the hell is Dave Thomas anyway? The fat guy on the Wendy's
> commercials?
>> Is he even a lawyer? What makes his opinion relevant? He could be an
> intern
>> stuck answering emails. His email consisted of two lines, which basically
>> boiled down to "Go read section 6 and stop bothering me"
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
>> To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
>>
>>
>> So the problem is that OTHERS would have to make THEIR code include the
> LGPL
>> dependency and THUS would also fall under section 6. So we would be ASL +
>> LGPL Section 6 licensed. (Which if that¹s a useful distinction to you
>> versus just saying "Requires us to LGPL" then fine...I don't see much
>> difference ;-) ).
>>
>> The ASL license allows you to NOT follow section 6. Effectively linking
> to
>> LGPL "virally" changes our license.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>>
>> On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> DT:
>>>> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
>>>
>>> Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
>>> "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the
>> terms
>>> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
>>> engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
>>> response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache
>> license
>>> fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
>>> that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL
>> license.
>>>
>>> I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this
>> way.
>>> It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
>>> with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
>>>
>>> 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
>>> 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
>>> users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
>>> 3)blah blah blah
>>> 4)blah blah ...
>>>
>>> You get the point.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
Andy, don't get bent out of shape because I passionately disagree with you.
Just because I am a part of your project does not mean that I have to agree
with everything you say. I have my own brain and I use it I am sorry that
you find that beneath me. I only attacked the facts of your argument. I
didn't realize you were taking it so personally, I thought you could deal
with the "tone" because you use the "tone" quite often when you attack other
people's arguments in your blog. Still friends? :-)
Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
I don't enjoy the argument in fact the very tone of this email is rather
upsetting and beneath you. I'm not at the moment in a mood to defend myself
or clarify anything because I'm rather miffed. Learn to write emails that
don't look like flames and you'll find working in open source a lot
easier...hell you'll find working on any distributed project a lot easier.
-Andy
On 7/16/03 7:04 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> You can include the dependency OR "Use a suitable shared library mechanism
> for linking with the Library". This is already handled by the JVM btw.
>
> I really could care less, I really just enjoy the argument. I see your
> summary statement that "LGPL is viral w/ java" as spreading inaccurate
FUD.
> I didn't see anything viral about the license. Maybe I'm missing
something.
> I have read it over and over and the most radical interpretation I could
> come up with is you have to include the source of "works that use the
> library" and thats only for executables. It says you can distribute these
> under your own terms in plain english. That means you don't have to give
it
> away! It also never mentions derivatives of these works. So if someone had
a
> problem with the terms they could program out the LGPL stuff later on.
>
> Who the hell is Dave Thomas anyway? The fat guy on the Wendy's
commercials?
> Is he even a lawyer? What makes his opinion relevant? He could be an
intern
> stuck answering emails. His email consisted of two lines, which basically
> boiled down to "Go read section 6 and stop bothering me"
>
> Ryan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
> To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
>
>
> So the problem is that OTHERS would have to make THEIR code include the
LGPL
> dependency and THUS would also fall under section 6. So we would be ASL +
> LGPL Section 6 licensed. (Which if that¹s a useful distinction to you
> versus just saying "Requires us to LGPL" then fine...I don't see much
> difference ;-) ).
>
> The ASL license allows you to NOT follow section 6. Effectively linking
to
> LGPL "virally" changes our license.
>
> -Andy
>
>
> On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> DT:
>>> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
>>
>> Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
>> "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the
> terms
>> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
>> engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
>> response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache
> license
>> fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
>> that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL
> license.
>>
>> I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this
> way.
>> It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
>> with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
>>
>> 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
>> 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
>> users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
>> 3)blah blah blah
>> 4)blah blah ...
>>
>> You get the point.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
I don't enjoy the argument in fact the very tone of this email is rather
upsetting and beneath you. I'm not at the moment in a mood to defend myself
or clarify anything because I'm rather miffed. Learn to write emails that
don't look like flames and you'll find working in open source a lot
easier...hell you'll find working on any distributed project a lot easier.
-Andy
On 7/16/03 7:04 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> You can include the dependency OR "Use a suitable shared library mechanism
> for linking with the Library". This is already handled by the JVM btw.
>
> I really could care less, I really just enjoy the argument. I see your
> summary statement that "LGPL is viral w/ java" as spreading inaccurate FUD.
> I didn't see anything viral about the license. Maybe I'm missing something.
> I have read it over and over and the most radical interpretation I could
> come up with is you have to include the source of "works that use the
> library" and thats only for executables. It says you can distribute these
> under your own terms in plain english. That means you don't have to give it
> away! It also never mentions derivatives of these works. So if someone had a
> problem with the terms they could program out the LGPL stuff later on.
>
> Who the hell is Dave Thomas anyway? The fat guy on the Wendy's commercials?
> Is he even a lawyer? What makes his opinion relevant? He could be an intern
> stuck answering emails. His email consisted of two lines, which basically
> boiled down to "Go read section 6 and stop bothering me"
>
> Ryan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
> To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
>
>
> So the problem is that OTHERS would have to make THEIR code include the LGPL
> dependency and THUS would also fall under section 6. So we would be ASL +
> LGPL Section 6 licensed. (Which if that¹s a useful distinction to you
> versus just saying "Requires us to LGPL" then fine...I don't see much
> difference ;-) ).
>
> The ASL license allows you to NOT follow section 6. Effectively linking to
> LGPL "virally" changes our license.
>
> -Andy
>
>
> On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> DT:
>>> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
>>
>> Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
>> "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the
> terms
>> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
>> engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
>> response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache
> license
>> fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
>> that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL
> license.
>>
>> I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this
> way.
>> It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
>> with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
>>
>> 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
>> 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
>> users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
>> 3)blah blah blah
>> 4)blah blah ...
>>
>> You get the point.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
You can include the dependency OR "Use a suitable shared library mechanism
for linking with the Library". This is already handled by the JVM btw.
I really could care less, I really just enjoy the argument. I see your
summary statement that "LGPL is viral w/ java" as spreading inaccurate FUD.
I didn't see anything viral about the license. Maybe I'm missing something.
I have read it over and over and the most radical interpretation I could
come up with is you have to include the source of "works that use the
library" and thats only for executables. It says you can distribute these
under your own terms in plain english. That means you don't have to give it
away! It also never mentions derivatives of these works. So if someone had a
problem with the terms they could program out the LGPL stuff later on.
Who the hell is Dave Thomas anyway? The fat guy on the Wendy's commercials?
Is he even a lawyer? What makes his opinion relevant? He could be an intern
stuck answering emails. His email consisted of two lines, which basically
boiled down to "Go read section 6 and stop bothering me"
Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
So the problem is that OTHERS would have to make THEIR code include the LGPL
dependency and THUS would also fall under section 6. So we would be ASL +
LGPL Section 6 licensed. (Which if that¹s a useful distinction to you
versus just saying "Requires us to LGPL" then fine...I don't see much
difference ;-) ).
The ASL license allows you to NOT follow section 6. Effectively linking to
LGPL "virally" changes our license.
-Andy
On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> DT:
>> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
>
> Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
> "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the
terms
> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
> engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
> response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache
license
> fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
> that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL
license.
>
> I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this
way.
> It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
> with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
>
> 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
> 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
> users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
> 3)blah blah blah
> 4)blah blah ...
>
> You get the point.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
So the problem is that OTHERS would have to make THEIR code include the LGPL
dependency and THUS would also fall under section 6. So we would be ASL +
LGPL Section 6 licensed. (Which if that¹s a useful distinction to you
versus just saying "Requires us to LGPL" then fine...I don't see much
difference ;-) ).
The ASL license allows you to NOT follow section 6. Effectively linking to
LGPL "virally" changes our license.
-Andy
On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> DT:
>> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
>
> Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
> "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms
> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
> engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
> response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache license
> fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
> that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL license.
>
> I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this way.
> It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
> with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
>
> 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
> 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
> users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
> 3)blah blah blah
> 4)blah blah ...
>
> You get the point.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
Re: questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
BTW, ask IBM how they'd feel about having to make their products licensed
with the section 6 restrictions. That would make POI unusable for them for
instance. In any case this is a moot point. The board wouldn't allow us to
distribute with this restriction. (I'd veto even if they didn't but they're
very clear on this anyhow)
-andy
On 7/16/03 3:19 PM, "Ryan Ackley" <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> DT:
>> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
>
> Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
> "...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms
> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
> engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
> response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache license
> fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
> that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL license.
>
> I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this way.
> It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
> with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
>
> 1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
> 2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
> users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
> 3)blah blah blah
> 4)blah blah ...
>
> You get the point.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
questionable LGPL license interpretation
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
> DT:
> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
Andy, I'm confused because section 6 is the section that states
"...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms
permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications" I would interprete DT's
response as saying that we CAN link to LGPL code because the Apache license
fits this requirement. I haven't been able to find anywhere in section 6
that says we have to make something that links to LGPL use the LGPL license.
I am interested in hearing your reasons for interpreting section 6 this way.
It actually is the section that gives permission for linking to LGPL code
with NO restrictions except that you have to do one of the following
1)distribute the source of the Library if you distribute the Library.
2)Provide the ability to link to the library that already exists on the
users computer at runtime (java already handles this).
3)blah blah blah
4)blah blah ...
You get the point.
Re: [Followup] RE: Possibly Include HTMLParser Jar in contrib code?
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
I am jumping into this conversation a little blind to all the facts but why
wouldn't you just use the standard HTMLParser in the jdk?
Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
To: "POI Developers List" <po...@jakarta.apache.org>
Cc: <in...@fsf.org>; <li...@fsf.org>; "Jakarta Project Management
Committee List" <pm...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Followup] RE: Possibly Include HTMLParser Jar in contrib code?
> You cannot. Though the FSF has stated that the Apache interpretation was
> correct and that importing classes from LGPL jar files in Java does indeed
> cause the "viral clause" to apply to Java.
>
> Please stop saying "lift the code" or other things that imply violating
the
> copyright.
>
> Under no circumstances can any LGPL code be used as it would require us to
> LGPL our code per section 6 of the LGPL license and the statement I
received
> from the Free Software Foundation's Dave Turner (the man behind
> licensing@fsf.org):
>
> "
> Me:
> > Brett Smith referred me to you regarding a question regarding the Lesser
Gnu
> > Public License (LGPL) in regards to Java. It is the interpretation of
most
> > of the open/free software communities that the use of a "jar" file by a
> > piece of software linked via a Java "import" statement does not bind the
> > linking work under the terms of the LGPL. The Apache Software
Foundation,
> > presently takes a more conservative view and thus projects of the ASF
are
> > not allowed to link/distribute LGPL programs into Java projects of the
> > foundation.
>
> DT:
> This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
> "
>
> In short, Sam was right, I was wrong.
>
> -Andy
>
> On 7/16/03 4:55 AM, "EPugh@upstate.com" <EP...@upstate.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry I haven't been on the list more, been traveling the last week. At
any
> > rate, Andy, did you ever get a resolution to including the HTMLParser
Jar?
> >
> > Should I just submit a code change the mimics the code that I need from
> > HTMLParser, I mean, it is just a long list of values being populated
into a
> > Map! That is all I really want, versus sophisticated translation of
> > character set logic or something...
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts...
> > eric
> >
>
> --
> Andrew C. Oliver
> http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
> Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
> For Java and Excel, Got POI?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>