forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Schmidt <>
Subject Re: plugins with some excluded licenses
Date Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:43:01 GMT
On Jul 10, 2006, at 4:34 PM, 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.


View raw message