Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

xom-interest - Re: [XOM-interest] License issue

xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul King <king AT asert.com.au>
  • To: xom-interest <xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] License issue
  • Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:47:21 +1000

Elliotte Harold wrote:
OK. For the last time:

The LGPL is completely compatible with Java. Merely linking to XOM, without modifying the XOM source code, does not infect your application with the LGPL. There has never been any confusion about this from anybody actually understands the LGPL and Java. All the FUD that's been smeared around this issue is based on either not understanding the LGPL, or not understanding how Java linking works, or both.

Several discussions I have had with lawyers in this area regarding L/GPL licensing implications for the Australian scene would mostly support the above opinion. In summary (but seek your own advice):

(1) The wording in the licenses regarding linking is ambiguous enough that a case (typically decided by non-IT people) could go either way as to whether linking to create a derived work would apply to Java.

(2) There is insufficient case history to gauge any legal certainty for the ambiguous areas at this point in time.

(3) If you are creating an application that uses a LGPL-licensed library, then despite (1) and (2) above, you can still be fairly (but not 100%) confident that you do not need to make any provisions within your license to apply any LGPL-like clauses or within your product for reverse engineering. If you are ultra paranoid, contact the authors and confirm. Most will say of course you can use my/our product/library in this way.

(4) If you are creating an application that uses a GPL library, then you can be fairly (but not 100%) confident that you will need to make GPL-compatible provisions within your license, though because of (1) and (2) above you might be able to get away with not complying. On the flip side, many current Linux distributions don't have a GPL license but include GPL software on there CDs. The ultra paranoid argue that (despite what we might argue in the IT world) including GPL applications on a CD and sometimes with help pages linking to the software, might fall under the umbrella of derived work. You should definately contact the author(s) if you want to use a GPL-licensed work and if you are ultra paranoid, either head down the GPL path yourself or avoid GPL software altogether for products that ship to customers. It is still fine to use for internal tools or internal applications.

Cheers, Paul.


--
Managing Director & Principal Consultant, ASERT
Specialists in Java/J2EE, XML, Internet, Integration, Content Management
web: http://www.asert.com.au, email: king AT asert DOT com DOT au




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page