Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

xom-interest - Re: [XOM-interest] LGPL vs. GPL with library exception

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 AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] LGPL vs. GPL with library exception
  • Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:15:18 +1000


A move to apache would typically be welcomed by most commercial companies.
The feedback I have (mosty from Australia) on "GPL with library exception"
vs LGPL is that the jury is still out as to which is "safer" for commercial
offerings wanting to bundle xom. Of course you can always dual license it.

Cheers, Paul.

Wolfgang Hoschek wrote:
What's the reason GPL with library exception would be preferred?

For XOM to be more relevant in today's Java open source ecosystem, which is overhelmingly dominated by Apache or Apache style licenses, it would make more sense to move towards Apache style or similar.

Irrespective of what opinion one might have on the related licensing debates, justified or not, (I'm not interested in such debates either), it is probably safe to say that a lot of potential XOM users and companies would see such as move as encouraging, and would start considering using XOM. Keep in mind that in reality it doesn't matter to what extent problems with GPL are technically FUD (or not), because users and companies typically are on the legally safe side, rather than potentially sorry.

Just my 2 cents...

Wolfgang.

On Feb 6, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:

Multiple people have requested that I release XOM under the GPL with library exception instead of the LGPL.

One thing I have recently noticed is that this would seem to prohibit one important distribution technique. I do not think GPL with library exception allows XOM to be bundled with non-GPL libraries in a single JAR file. I think the LGPL does in fact allow this under section 7. GPL with library exception does not have an equivalent section 7. I'm not 100% sure of that, but I've read through the license a few times thinking about this, and each time I've come to the same conclusion.

I am considering whether it would make sense to bundle XOM together with Jaxen in a single JAR to address the problem Wolfgang raised where even new Element("Hello") fails unless Jaxen is in the classpath.

If anyone suspects I'm misreading the LGPL, and thinks I can't bundle non-GPL software with XOM in the same JAR, please let me know your thinking. To the extent, it makes a difference, the version of Jaxen I would be bundling has no dependence whatsoever on XOM; that is the org.jaxen.xom package would not be included. The bundled, non-GPL library would have no imports or subclasses or any other references to the LGPL library it's bundled with.

(Note: there is a technical exception here even if it is normally not allowed to bundle non-GPL and GPL software into a single package. Since I'm the owner of XOM, I can bundle anything else with it I like, provided the 3rd party licenses allow it. That is, I can make any exceptions to the LGPL in any way I like; but of course I want everyone else to be able to make such bundles too, not just me.)






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page