incubator-bluesky-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Luciano Resende" <luckbr1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Date Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:26:10 GMT
Henry is trying to find out if there are any open legal issues other
then the ones already discussed in legal-discuss.
So, apart from FFmpeg and libstdc++, is there any other legal issues
that still need to be investigated  ?


On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <lovesummerf@gmail.com> wrote:
> the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
> problem with FFmpeg
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> *William A. Rowe, Jr.*
>
>  发送至 legal-discuss
>
>  显示详细信息 9月25日
>
>  回复
>
>
>
>    Samul Kevin wrote:
>>
>> You can use libavcodec or libavformat in your commercial program, but
>> /any patch you make must be published/. The best way to proceed is to
>> send your patches to the FFmpeg mailing list.
>>
>> here is the url of the general faq:http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/general.html
>
> #  Contributions should be licensed under the LGPL 2.1, including an "or any
> later version" clause, or the MIT license. GPL 2
> including an "or any later version" clause is also acceptable, but LGPL is
> preferred.
>
> Wow.  That's fairly ambiguous.
>
> I don't know how this is going to pan out, but thought I should pass on the
> relevant quotation.
>
> Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's possible
> for projects to offer support to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Samul Kevin wrote:
>>
>> 2008/9/25 William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
>>
>
>> > Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's
>> > possible for projects to offer support to it.
>>
>
>  Please review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html and discuss with
> the incubating project's mentors.  This issue was asked and answered about
> two years ago when bluesky sought incubation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
>>>
> GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places
> on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
> LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.>>Since no other
> people in leagl discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's a
> veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
> need advices to improve our work at apache.
>
> Bowen
>
>
>
> 2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
>
>> Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
>> regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
>> that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
>> checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
>> incubator project usually is.
>>
>> My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
>> issues? What's open, what's resolved etc?
>>
>> Hopefully I can be of use,
>>
>> Hen
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team    XJTU
>



-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Mime
View raw message