Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4371EE4E.6080700@coredevelopers.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:40:46 +0000
From: Jules Gosnell <jules@coredevelopers.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [consolidation] next steps?
References: <528E8F98-AF14-4210-988E-59EA1515342B@iq80.com>
	 <436BD5E7.8050606@Golux.Com>
	 <3AB7BA5A-ED67-4A13-9B92-B8AAA10EEA8A@iq80.com>
	 <7b3355cb0511071042i774c48b2y99219c6917dc5e51@mail.gmail.com>
	 <EBB383E0-D6CD-4B0C-8883-32999B733801@iq80.com>
	 <7b3355cb0511071214x76660834keefa8395aec004cd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <B078AE46-BAC7-48F7-A783-BFA3C2EA0ADB@apache.org>
	 <7b3355cb0511080729q2e87d6c2ydfc5cee447ab11d6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9e3862d80511081350i24b2779fra77aae4c2c02b2ba@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4371CE1C.2010903@coredevelopers.net>
 <9e3862d80511090306t6157fed3v61e18a9bfe658d82@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9e3862d80511090306t6157fed3v61e18a9bfe658d82@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thaks for the clarifications, Brett.

Jules


Brett Porter wrote:

>I'm not on the incubator PMC, so this is just my personal
>understanding. I may be getting in over my head :)
>
>On 11/9/05, Jules Gosnell <jules@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>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 ?
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry, I was unclear. I don't think I'd recommend this, but it is
>possible as code in the incubator is covered by a disclaimer and no
>releases can be made until IP and licensing has been cleared.
>
>  
>
>>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'.
>>    
>>
>
>I think both of these constitute a derivative work falling under the
>GPL. As far as I know, the only way to combine with GPL applications
>is by executing them in a separate process.
>
>  
>
>>>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 ?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>There is ongoing discussion around this.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
>>    
>>
>
>right.
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200508.mbox/%3c96D75844-B15A-45E3-BF8D-5CF4517A09E2@apache.org%3e
>
>  
>
>>thanks for helping with this.
>>    
>>
>
>No problem. I think it would be best to ask these questions of
>general@incubator and legal-discuss when it comes to specifics.
>
>Cheers,
>- Brett
>  
>


-- 
"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)
 *
 *    www.coredevelopers.net
 *
 * Open Source Training & Support.
 **********************************/