classpath
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LGPL possible for SHA-1 provider?


From: Harald Albrecht
Subject: Re: LGPL possible for SHA-1 provider?
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:05:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628

Thanks for the quick reply.

Brian Jones wrote:

The license of your software does not affect your ability to use all
of Classpath or parts of it in your application.  If you modify some
part, then we believe you may then be forced to distribute those
modifications with your application.  If you make no modification at
all from a released version you then don't need to distribute source
or object files.


The problem is not with my own applications or not giving the modified sources away. What I would like to do is having the same license conditions or at least conditions compatible with the LGPL for the whole package. The CUP runtime classes my package also provides (moved to the org.acplt package tree) are compatible with the LGPL. I am perfectly willing to distribute the changes, that's why the RemoteTea package has been put under the LGPL. The reason for not chosing GPL this particular time was to avoid problems with people using these packages in their very own, maybe proprietary applications. This has been proved right so far, as companies from automotive industry, banks (those with money), accomodation reservation systems, etc. are now using RemoteTea and helped testing and improving the package.


To answer your question, I don't think you can distribute your
modified SHA.java under the LGPL, but you can distribute that file
under our terms (which provide more freedom than the LGPL) or the
terms of the GPL.


So I probably should put a special note in the README pointing out that the SHA class is GPL instead of LGPL. This should be okay for users as this only applies to the stand-alone jrpcgen protocol compiler, so everyone can use the protocol compiler without getting touchy with the GPL (no, I'm not against the GPL, and I am using it for several projects of my own and perfer it, but for political reasons, sometimes the LGPL is of more use in certain situations).


As a side note, more than likely we did make an alpha release of the
software containing some of this code and more than likely it was
before we changed our license, not that this should matter much.


;) Unfortunately the alpha release did not come with any security provider...


--
Harald Albrecht
Chair of Process Control Engineering
RWTH Aachen University of Technology
Turmstrasse 46, D-52064 Aachen, Germany
Tel.: +49 241 80-7703, Fax:  +49 241 8888-238




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]