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

Re: java-getopt

Hi Raif and Etienne,

> > what license is java-getopt distributed under? (if it is GPLed we
> > simply cannot use it).
> As far as I know, it is (was?) licensed under the LGPL, which is
> perfectly compatible with SableCC.

Clear; if it is LGPLed no problem at all.

> Ideally, we should extract the necessary classes from java-getopt and
> include them within the sablecc.jar file, but this means we also have to
> display the java-getopt license information along SableCC's when invoked
> with the --license option.  This should be easy to implement.

Agreed. Having it all in single jar is all we need.

> I can take care of it once the new code is in CVS.

Cool!   I will let you know once my CVS "lock" is released ;o)

> > in the process i removed the dependency on Executable --which is no
> > longer needed.  i also added a new option (q, quiet) to reduce the verbosity
> > of the processing, and renamed 'with-Tools' to just (t, tools).
> That's fine with me too.  Mariusz?


> > finally the build.xml was amended to include, and download it from
> > Aron's site if necessary, the contents of java-getopt-1.0.8 jar.
> As long as we also provide it within the distributed source package,
> that's fine.

Agreed.  I hope java-getopt is packaged with license and sources which
should then be easy to integrate with building and distributing sablecc.

I have two off topic questions regarding GNU licenses:

1. Is it ok with the distribution of LGPL (or GPL) code in binary form
simply place a note that source code is available at such and such URL,
instead of actually putting the sources with the distribution? (I am
talking in general, not about sablecc as such). The obvious benefit is,
that the size of distribution is radically reduced, and, that the pointer
(lets say to SourceForge web URL) always points to the latest sources).

2. Is it ok for a COMMERCIAL software binary distribution, which uses some
LGPLed code to actually not include sources of the distributed LGPLed
parts, but place a note with URL specifying where such sources can be
obtained? (same as above, to reduce the size of the distribution)?
Is it ok for a commercial software to include LGPLed library into a single
jar (e.g. java-getopt?).

Not that I have actually such a problem right now ;o)   just curious.

best regards