Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>>> LGPL is a no go for Cayenne inclusion
>> I don't think this should be a problem(if for SUN it's not) as it's
>> just a temporary state until it's included into the JDK.
>
> Well, until then it is most definitely a problem.
>
Well, I don't understand why Apache is so picky about this entire LGPL
thing, considering that in most cases such libraries will be only used, not
changed. And if even SUN (or others that use this library) don't care:here's
a quote from the AppFramework list:
>> I'm curious why the LGPL license is being used for this project
>> rather than the BSD or Apache license? I do not believe that Java
>> SE 6 distribution (http://java.sun.com/javase/6/javase-6-
>> thirdpartyreadme.txt) included any LGPL licenses. If this JSR is
>> intended to be included with Java SE 7 does it plan to be
>> distributed under a different license?
>
> Not necessarily. Since Sun owns the copyright to all the code in app
> framework, beans binding, swingx, etc. we can change the license if
> included in Java SE. That's one reason why we require the JCA/CA to
> be signed before we can accept code in these projects from external
> contributors.
>
> Richard
>
Tom.
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-JIRA--Created%3A-%28CAY-906%29-CM-Usability%3A-Use-AppFramework---JSR-296---to-simplify-the-code-tf4698490.html#a13432321 Sent from the Cayenne - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 13:51:27 EDT