RE: AW: License proposal

On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:12, Andrew Hill wrote:

> Ive been reading through these posts and links regarding the issue of LGPL
> and Java, and must admit to being more confused about the implications than
> I was before I started. (Not to mention that I had until today thought LGPL
> meant what people thought it meant (and still does for C from what I
> gather)).
> 
> Does using an LGPL library/framework with a Java app require the user to
> make their product LGPL???


No. The LGPL governs the distribution of the LGPL'd code and has no
impact on proprietary apps.


> Does it require them to allow their product to be reverse-engineered?
> 
> If so I would strongly recomend that you dont go LGPL.
> While free software is great and all that (just like Mum and apple pie), I
> would have thought it better that you allow people to also build proprietary
> applications using Barracuda (like they can with Struts under the Apache
> license). Imho it would be a "bad thing" for you to restrict your users to
> creating only free (or reverse engineerable/modifiable) applications and
> would certainly limit the popularity of Barracuda.
> 
> If not ignore the above ;-)
> 
> So what IS the story with LGPL?


It is only concerned with distribution of code - it has nothing to do
with copyright.
With Barracuda's future in mind, and my company which uses it, I
strongly recommend the LGPL!
There are as far as I am aware, no issues with it at all!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Diez B. Roggisch
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:57
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> > The only way to keep Barracuda truly free is by using the LGPL.  I think
> we
> > have to have clear reasons of why not to use it if we are to actually
> > choose a license other than LGPL.
> 
> I agree with this - there's a lot of LGPLed java stuff out there that isn't
> rendered useless by its license. I have no deeper insight into the
> motivations of the apache-group, but I can imagine that they like the idea
> of
> having the opportunity to turn something into a commercial product - so
> _they_ might have their troubles with LGPL.
> 
> So - as long as we don't want to be part of jakarta, I still opt for LGPL.
> 
> Diez
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE/+9fOBUNnEs5xWG4RAmQzAJ9vGxIO2lZVy0JxD+52fskQOu28/ACfSpDx
> YUwN9DAXbgQuvwFUsyHq6yk=
> =qkPW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda