Mailing-List: contact celix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of pepijnnoltes@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8ED07055-D914-4ED6-8D0B-4F4FB2D9713D@luminis.nl>
References: <ae255bc5109c22c636f9eba3dfe73903.squirrel@46.19.35.7>
	<462D5736-A3C1-4350-9716-0A127E88BD9A@luminis.nl>
	<49b3743719dc23665cf8036baa55dcee.squirrel@46.19.35.7>
	<CAPhv5g96k=AVomG2Z7gw6_52_GzhfMjg7CKnuXw_VkinBmTj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ED07055-D914-4ED6-8D0B-4F4FB2D9713D@luminis.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:56:26 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAPhv5g_dNkbZaXz5Ej9H9tsgb+fFpiCP0Ew7AqyfAwW_ZVXFyA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Introducing myself
From: Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com>
To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041c43b05a91e504d9fdd805

--f46d041c43b05a91e504d9fdd805
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>
>

--f46d041c43b05a91e504d9fdd805--