celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Introducing myself
Date Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:56:26 GMT
Hi Marcel,

Thanks for the reply.


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Marcel Offermans <
marcel.offermans@luminis.nl> wrote:

> Hello Pepijn,
>
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 22:31 PM, Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea is that the work Erik is doing for his assignment should be
> > contributed to Apache Celix.
> > If I am correct the Coperate CLA [2] which Thales has signed should make
> > this possible.
>
> Yes, legally that is what is needed.
>
> Obviously in the end, it is up to the Celix community if they want to
> accept such a contribution, but it sounds like it is something worthwhile!
>
> > One option we are looking into is ZeroMQ, which is licensed under the
> LGPL.
> > If I am reading the Third-Party Licensing Policy correct, this is legal,
> if
> > we handle this as a optional add-on [3]. Am I correct on this ?
>
> Actually, that page refers to [4] and as far as I understand, we can not
> include anything LGPL in our source tree, so if using ZeroMQ requires us to
> use its API and that is LGPL then we cannot do that.
>

To be honest, this is not clear for me. I would expect that depending on a
API, which a user should obtain and is not included in the source
distribution is legal for optional functionality.


> > And do we find adding optional add-ons with non authorized licences
> > acceptable for functionality not part of the core framework?
> > Personally I think this should be ok, if it adds a significant
> advantages.
>
> It's a tradeoff (see above). I would prefer to stick with things that are
> compatible.
>

Yes, I wasn't aware that LGPL was this problematic. Knowing that I agree
that we should ensure a good alternative which is license compatible.


>
> Unrelated to Celix, but are you allowed to use LGPL at your company?
>

General speaking yes, but we have a dedicated board which decides this for
every newly added product/version combination.



>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> > [3]  http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options-optional
>
> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message