forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: plugins with some excluded licenses
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:01:46 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >>I give you the long answer for two reasons: a) to give you an  
> >>understanding for the ideas behind all those rules, and b)  to make  
> >>sure I'm not misleading anyone into thinking that distributing an  
> >>LGPL library within an Apache product would cause us to all go to  FSF 
> >>jail (or worse, JBoss jail!).  The reason we don't distribute  LGPL 
> >>jars in our products is because our users have come to  associate the 
> >>Apache brand with (among other things) commercially- friendly 
> >>software, and the LGPL places restrictions on how they can  license 
> >>software that links to the library, which most would  consider not as 
> >>friendly as they would like.
> >
> >Actually, there was another reason I gave the long answer: I'm always  
> >looking for feedback from people on this policy.  When it's simply a  
> >matter of the legality of a particular action, I can usually make  that 
> >decision easily enough on my own (and with the help of our  generous pro 
> >bono lawyers); but when it's an issue of figuring out  the right policy 
> >for Apache, I really want as much feedback as possible.
> >
> >I hate to think that this policy would risk dividing a development  
> >community unless absolutely necessary.  So, if any of you have  thoughts 
> >on the utility/importance of drawing lines to ensure that  the Apache 
> >brand has some well-defined licensing definition (such as  I've tried to 
> >do with this policy to create something that is  "commercially 
> >friendly"), please let me know.  I'm don't want to  hijack the 
> >short-term issue, but I want everyone to know the big  picture and that 
> >I'm always open to hearing potentially better ideas.
> Since it is I who has the "problem" with the LGPL libraries I ought to 
> state my opinion.

Yes but we extended it to find a general solution
for other potential cases.

> I fully understand the intent of this policy.
> I fully support the intent of this policy.
> I do not believe that our proposed solution will divide the community 
> since we will only be providing the binary download from a third party 
> distribution site.
> Cliff, thanks for all your efforts in formulating a clear policy for us 
> to follow. It makes life much easier.

Can i please get clarification about the outcome.
The proposed solution evolved to the following:
We have bridge code as AL2 in our SVN, all discussion
and development can happen our asf mailing list.
The optional "binary" is not the concern of the
Forrest project.

Ross is that how you see it?


View raw message