Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, thanks for illustrating that ignoring the terms of the GPL can
> force you having to take on the legal department of IBM, something
> which probably most people you are trying to advise in this group are
> not particularly longing for.

The legal department of IBM wrote the Common Public License 
(reciprocal share-alike contractual license). And even Microsoft 
apparently has no problems with it. 

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+flexes+more+open-source+muscle/2100-7344_3-5384769.html

There is a bunch of CPL derivatives like Eclipse and Lucent Public 
Licenses you might want to take a look at as well. As for [L]GPL,
apart from a few exceptions like Linux (which is under Linus'
"unwritten version of the GPL", so to say) and gcc + std libraries 
(C++ stdlib is also under "not quite GPL" -- "runtime exception"), 
it is really hard to find IBM's works under FSF's licenses.

regards,
alexander.