[antlr-interest] ANTLR 3 License

[Matt Benson]

Okay, just because the conversation got interesting, I
took it upon myself to read section six and some of
the text immediately preceding that section.  Meaning
no disrespect, it seems to me that (assuming he was
correctly quoted in the POI development forum) Dave
Turner's responses there and below are contradictory. 
My interpretation of the answer

"DT:  This sort of linking falls under section 6 of
the LGPL."

is:  "Java code that depends on LGPL Java classes via
import statements and/or fully-qualified class names
must fulfill the terms of section 6 of the LGPL to
remain in compliance."

  This is in direct opposition to Braden's
interpretation, which has received DT's blessings this
week.

  If indeed these disputes are usually settled
amicably, I guess all anyone can do is do the best he
can to the best of his knowledge and/or ability, and
cooperate cheerfully to ameliorate any abuses of which
he may find himself guilty.

!

--- Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 15:03, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > I simply do not see how Clause 6 can be read to
> support the conclusion that 
> > you and Andrew Oliver have reached. However, I'll
> contact licenses at gnu.org for 
> > clarification. Thanks for the reference, and I'll
> post the conclusion to antlr-
> > interest.
> 
> Here's my response from David Turner:
> 
>         On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 15:14,
> braden at endoframe.com via RT wrote:
>         
>         > In support of the assertion that Java code
> that depends on LGPL-licensed Java 
>         > code via "import" (in, e.g., a JAR
> archive) must also be licensed using the 
>         > LGPL, I was recently referred to this
> message:
>         > 
>         >  
>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.poi.devel/5900>
>         > 
>         > I do not agree with that assertion--my
> reading of Clause 6 of the LGPL does 
>         > not support it--and I am inclined to think
> that you have been misinterpreted. 
>         > Could you please clarify this? If I am in
> fact incorrect, I would appreciate 
>         > an articulation of how Clause 6 supports
> the aforementioned assertion.
>         
>         You are correct that this is a misreading of
> Section 6.  
> 
> Terse; but understandably so, given that a this man
> was probably quite
> tired of the hubbub Andrew Oliver's erroneous
> reading caused. For more
> info, see Slashdot. :-/
> 
> -- 
> Braden McDaniel                           e-mail:
> <braden at endoframe.com>
> <http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber:
> <braden at jabber.org>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/