Hi. I'm that David Turner who is quoted. I'm not the David Turner who works for Microsoft, and I do not hack on Freetype.
First, I'm upset that CowboyNeal didn't contact me -- as the article says, I work at the Free Software Foundation, and you can find our phone number on our web page by searching for "s" on Google and clicking "I Feel Lucky."
Now, if you read section 6 of the LGPL, it's not the same hereditary [1] thing as section 2 of the GPL -- what it says is that your program, which links against th
The problem is that CowboyNeal didn't call me first.
As a result, the article gives the wrong impression -- it implies that the LGPL is broken with respect to Java. In fact, it is not. Section 6 works for Java in the more-or-less the same way it works for C.
I was talking about a technical point of view? How does a person use a lgpl java jar in a way that complies with section 6 of the lgpl. The people who wrote the blogs don't seem to know it.
It might be usefull to know this for other programming languaes too? maybe a nice Idea for in the faq.
1. Make sure your licensing follows the simple requirements in the 1st para of section 6.
2. Provide the LGPL library in a separate jar, and allow that jar to be replaced by newer versions of the library. This is only one of the possible ways to comply, but it's certainly the easiest.
3. Make available the source code for the LGPL library.
1. Make sure your licensing follows the simple requirements in the 1st para of section 6.
2. Provide the LGPL library in a separate jar, and allow that jar to be replaced by newer versions of the library.
This is only one of the possible ways to comply, but it's certainly the easiest.
3. Make available the source code for the LGPL library.
Assuming you didn't modify the LGPLed code, is it sufficient to provide a link to the authors distribution of the source? Basically, do I have to host the source or just tell you where to get it?
It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small
price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.
Yes, that David Turner (Score:5, Informative)
First, I'm upset that CowboyNeal didn't contact me -- as the article says, I work at the Free Software Foundation, and you can find our phone number on our web page by searching for "s" on Google and clicking "I Feel Lucky."
Now, if you read section 6 of the LGPL, it's not the same hereditary [1] thing as section 2 of the GPL -- what it says is that your program, which links against th
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:1)
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:4, Informative)
As a result, the article gives the wrong impression -- it implies that the LGPL is broken with respect to Java. In fact, it is not. Section 6 works for Java in the more-or-less the same way it works for C.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:1)
It might be usefull to know this for other programming languaes too? maybe a nice Idea for in the faq.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:5, Informative)
2. Provide the LGPL library in a separate jar, and allow that jar to be replaced by newer versions of the library. This is only one of the possible ways to comply, but it's certainly the easiest.
3. Make available the source code for the LGPL library.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:1)
2. Provide the LGPL library in a separate jar, and allow that jar to be replaced by newer versions of the library. This is only one of the possible ways to comply, but it's certainly the easiest.
3. Make available the source code for the LGPL library.
4.
5. Profit!
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:1)