JScreenSaver is available with lgpl license, and that means i have to provide the source for it and the programs that are linked to it. But JScreenSaver starts another java program, does that mean its linked? do i have to provide the source for my java program too?
the name of the java program that it launches is not hardcoded its specified in a .cfg file for JScreenSaver
doesn’t “L” GPL mean it that you don’t infact have to release the source to everything that uses it? Isn’t GPL the one that force source release?
Or was this the thing that was under debate here for so long?
Kev
Well, “(hard)linking” doesn’t really exist in Java. It means that you include the dll (dynmaic lib) into your exe, by telling the compiler to do so.
In java the most similar thing is jaring - well it’s just a zip.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
The L version of the GPL allows you to use the lib, without forcing you to release your code. However, if you make changes to the lib (or that piece of whatsoever) you have to release your changed version, too (not your programm itself).
(You didnt got my version working huh? :-/)
[quote]Well, “(hard)linking” doesn’t really exist in Java. It means that you include the dll (dynmaic lib) into your exe, by telling the compiler to do so.
[/quote]
I’ve seen it twice from confirmed sources @ gnu that - specifically for java - the LGPL does NOT mean “linking” it means something more general that basically means all java automatically is linking whether you like it or not UNLESS you use JET and do a native-code compile.
My advice? If you want to use LGPL tech, email the author and get him to state his personal intent w.r.t the LGPL applicability, and then print the email. This does have legal validity should someone try to bite you in the future; although the extent to which it would protect you varies according to circumstances. Most authors whom I’ve emailed have clearly intended not to be mean draconian gits, and are very nice about the whole thing.
Then again, the official channels (IIRC a particular contact address for license queries?) for answering GPL questions allegedly have given self-contradictory advice in the past before, and maybe I’ve seen a mistake. Twice.
The whole thing is utterly flipping ridiculous IMNSHO (the license doesn’t mean what it says [hmm; bet they’re glad it’s never come to court, then], simply because the people writing it were too incompetent to think about more than one language when writing it) and it was the last straw in my realising that the last thing any developer should do is release under a *GPL license - I release everything under BSD, MIT, or similar; anything but the GPL’s.
FWIW I’m pretty sure that LGPL has a valid legal literal interpretation when applied to java that basically means you can screw the intent of the licensor. Idiots. Plain idiots.
[quote]I’ve seen it twice from confirmed sources @ gnu that - specifically for java - the LGPL does NOT mean “linking” it means something more general that basically means all java automatically is linking whether you like it or not UNLESS you use JET and do a native-code compile.
[…]
[/quote]
Aww… they changed that? (that stupidly?!)
Well, zulo… you could give mine another try. It’s DSM license (don’t sue me) - you can do whatever you wanna do with it 
so I just have to release code for the library? since i dont change the code, only the .cfg file so another .jar is run…
“If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients” as I can see, my java code isnt linked with the library, it is standalone,the thing is…this “library” or program starts my program…but my program can start by itself too…or atleast without JScreenSaver library…
oNyX, I tried yours and I wanted to use it, it worked almost except it didnt start automatically…I tried to search for copies of the file…and i tried to place the files in different places but it didnt work…very strange…and im no good at c or c++ so i cant see what could be the reason for this, i did manage to compile it but i didnt understand much of the code… 
I get the impression it’s best not to use LGPL with Java API’s - I was going to LGPL some of my own but went BSD instead. GPL’s fine for apps you want to keep open but for API’s…
There are some good LGPL Java api’s however (such as a vorbis decoder) so it’s something we have to deal with. Common sense says that if you’re not modifying the API itself you are in the clear - but the law isn’t always common sense. I’d take blar*3’s advice and email the guy
The GPL has a very valid place IMHO - but it’s certainly not the be all and end all that some people believe it is.
Will.
Yeah, LGPL + Java = nasty legal mess. As with most things in computing these days, the authors of the GPL considered C and nothing else.
Email the author and ask if he’ll dual-licence it with BSD for you.