[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LGPL and Java

On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 13:11, Henning Makholm wrote:
> This week's issue of DWN, just out, contains an item reading
> | LGPL affecting Client Java Code? [11]According to this [12]article,
> | Dave Turner of the FSF has decreed that the steps required to use an
> | LGPL'd Java library will actually infect client code with substantial
> | GNU-ness via Section 6 of the LGPL.
> |...
> | 11. http://slashdot.org/developers/03/07/17/2257224.shtml
> | 12. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.poi.devel/5900
> Could someone explain whether some facts got distorted on the way to
> the DWN summary? The link [12] leads to some list archive where David
> Turner is quoted as saying

The Slashdot article misparaphrased me.  The submitter has agreed that
he misunderstood me, and the whole thing has been cleared up with the
Apache people.  So, although I'll be sending messages like this for 
the rest of my natural life, you can safely ignore the original news 
article and all the discussion it has spawned.

The LGPL works the way everyone has always thought it works.  Java does
not render the LGPL inoperable.  Section 6(b) is intended for cases like
Java's JAR files.  

> || This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
> Hower, section 6 of the LGPL is exactly the clause that says that under
> certain conditions it is *not* necessary:

Yes, that's correct.

> How on earth did that morph into a statement that the client code gets
> "infected with substantial GNU-ness"?

Via the internet version of EAT POOP YOU CAT [1]


(unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to discuss this, so I hope
this doesn't turn into the sort of d-l discussion with 500 messages --
if it does, I'll probably not have time to keep up)

-David "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSFnovali

Reply to: