On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 12:11, 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 > > || 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: It seems to have happened because the person in [12] took Dave Turner's response to mean the LGPL extended to the linked code, and didn't actually bother to read section 6. Then, neither Slashdot, nor DWN, nor anyone else commenting on the issue, bothered to check that person's response. From the number of links I see, this is getting amazingly out of hand, and no one has bothered to actually check the license (except us), I guess. Shoddy reporting from Slashdot (expected), a lot of "bloggers" (ugh), and DWN (who do we complain to about this?). -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part