geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:01:56 GMT

On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:

> Brett Porter wrote:
>> This is one of the requirements of incubation, so it will be taken
>> care of there -
> can you clarify this.
> are you saying that these licensing constraints do not apply in the  
> incubator - that we just dump all our code in there, no matter  
> what, provided that licensing issues are resolved before promotion  
> out of it ?

Well, the licensing constraints to apply, but the incubator is a  
place to sort them out.  It simply means that you won't be able to  
release anything, nor have those deps in "nightly builds" or that  
sort of thing.

Roller in incubator is an example of this (although a very special  
case I think).

I think the most wise thing is to jettison everything you can before,  
and then be clear about what is there on introduction to the incubator.

>> but it's good for those communities to be aware of it
>> when making their decision.
>> The GPL doc you refer to is actually about the combining of ASL and
>> GPL works being possible at all, regardless of the requirements here.
>> The following are some guidelines, though it'd be best to consider
>> individual cases on legal-discuss@ which will have to happen during
>> incubation.
>> As for what you can depend on/include as an ASF project, GPL is not
>> possible because it affects the license of the whole.
> please clarify 'depend on/include' - by this do you mean  
> 'physically package together with your binary distribution' or  
> 'import at compile time, into classes that are shipped in the  
> binary distribution'.

if you import GPL at compile time, the virality of the GPL requires  
that you license under the GPL, so clearly that's not allowed.

GPL isn't alllowed at all.

>> LGPL may be
>> possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
>> application.
> so it is OK to 'import' LGPL code at compile time, as long as you  
> don't ship it ?

Currently, this is something that is being decided, and it wouldn't  
be prudent to predict the outcome.

One proposal was to allow imports of LGPL as long as the LGPL-ed code  
base was not required for the software to run, but rather would  
support an optional feature.  That still would preclude the incusion  
of the LGPL-ed jar in any distribution from the ASF.

Again, this isn't done, and it's a very confusing issue because of  
uncertainties people have with the meaning of the LGPL.

>> There is ongoing discussion around this.
> so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
>> The key point is that the ASF retain its ability to distribute
>> software that doesn't have conditions beyond those in the ASL (yes,
>> there are some exceptions out there).
> thanks for helping with this.
> Jules
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>> On 11/9/05, Bruce Snyder <> wrote:
>>> Even beyond the requirements of incubation, there exists a whole  
>>> host
>>> of issues surrounding the use of code with a license other than  
>>> AL. I
>>> know that ServiceMix  and WADI integrate such code. So how is  
>>> this to
>>> be sorted out? For example, I know that the ASF has a long-standing
>>> policy on the use of GPL compatibility:
>>> In addition to the whole GPL can of worms, how about the TranQL
>>> requirement for Oracle and DB2 JDBC drivers?
> -- 
> "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
> string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
> crystallises out around it."
> /**********************************
> * Jules Gosnell
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> *
> *
> *
> * Open Source Training & Support.
> **********************************/

Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message