commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Promote vfs-cift out of sandbox?
Date Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:11:03 GMT

On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, sebb wrote:

>>>> 
>>>> Can the above be read as follows for VFS and JCIFS: you cannot copy the
>>>> JCIFS jar into VFS (which we do not) but the VFS POM can point to it (which
>>>> we do).
>>> 
>>> The above document is only proposed, not actual policy.
>>> 
>>> The following is the resolved list of questions:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>> 
>>> In particular:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>> 
>>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding the
>>> optional components?
>> 
>> I do not see how this helps. It's yes or no: Can the VFS POM point to
>> a set of artifacts that are LGPL?
> 
> Whether the answer is yes or no depends on the answer to the above question.

There are only a few file systems in VFS that should be considered required. All the ones
that require the user to include a third-party jar - even if it is Jackrabbit's - are optional.
 We could easily include file systems that have dependencies on artifacts that are licensed
under the LGPL or similar licenses (although I would still shy away from GPL'd works because
of the FSF's interpretation of their license).  

The biggest issue I see with the stuff in the sandbox isn't licensing but if anyone will support
it. 

Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message