felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nektarios K. Papadopoulos" <npapa...@inaccessnetworks.com>
Subject Re: Should I move JMood to the trunk?
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:46:36 GMT

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:47, Nektarios K. Papadopoulos wrote:
>>> Since FSF is still considering Java to trigger the viral behavior of LGPL
>>> when you have a dependency through an import statement, ASF plays safe
>>> and do not allow projects to have a direct binary dependency.
>> IANAL, but according to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html it is
>> safe to have a dependency through an import statement. The problem would
>> be to link to GPL, *not* LGPL.
>> Nevertheless, indeed ASF do not allow this, with the exceptions
>> described in the link provided by Upayavira
> Mr Turner's statement is of course both accurate and misleading.

I guess I fall in the misleading part ;-)
> Though the derived work may not be required to be LGPL'd, the LGPL requires 
> concession's in the downstream licenses that are not acceptable by the ASF, 
> i.e. someone making a commercial version of Felix and its constituents must 
> not be required to allow reverse-engineering of the codebase, which LGPL 
> require us to enforce on our downstream users. Hence the virality...
I took the time to look closer into the #6 clause of LGPL and -despite 
Mr.Turner's statement- reverse-engineering of the codebase is required. 
Thanks for pointing out.

> Therefor LGPL is listed as Excluded Licenses.
I understand.
> <quote source="Cliff Schmidt" >
> Inclusion within the product 
>    YOU MUST NOT include any portion of a prohibited work within the Apache
>    product, whether or not that work is considered required or optional.
>    YOU MAY include code within the Apache product necessary to achieve
>    compatibility with a prohibited work through the use of API calls, "bridge
>    code", or protocols, provided that the compatibility code was contributed
>    under a CLA. However, any such code used for compatibility with a
>    third-party work that is licensed under terms that violate criterion #2
>    ("must not place restrictions on the distribution of independent works that
>    simply use or contain the covered work."), such as the GPL, requires review
>    and explicit approval of both the PMC chair and the Legal Affairs officer.
>    This review will ensure that the Apache product takes only the necessary
>    steps to achieve compatibility.
>    YOU MAY ALSO include a feature within an Apache product that allows the
>    user to explicitly choose to download an optional third-party add-on, as
>    long as that feature also alerts the user of the associated license.
> </quote>
> I interpret this as;
> If JMood (I haven't checked) uses LGPL code that part shall not be part of the 
> Felix project, irregardless if it is optional or not. And to be safe, the 
> Facade API reside in Felix (without the linking prohibited code) and the 
> implementation of that Facade resides elsewhere, e.g. SF.
Well, this part is covered by the replies from Upayavira[1] (this was my 
understanding of the whole issue) and Manuel Santillán [2].


> Any other use, I guess Cliff wants a say about it...
> Cheers
> Niclas
Nektarios K. Papadopoulos
Senior Engineer
Software Engineering Group
inAccess Networks
95A Pentelis Avenue.    Tel    : +30-210-6837640
152 34 Halandri Athens  Fax    : +30-210-6899504

View raw message