incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Post mortem request for the handling of the Corinthia podling (was Re: FYI, I have subscribed to this list and to your private list)
Date Sun, 17 Jan 2016 04:55:06 GMT
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>The ticking time bomb, as we discovered several months in, was the
>>disconcertingly-named “Category X list”, described at
>>http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html (under "Which licenses may not
>>be included within apache products?”). This lists several licenses,
>>including the LGPL, regarding which it states:
>>
>>"The 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.”
>>
>>When I (and some others) on the project read this, we did not see it as a
>>problem. We were not distributing any LGPL-licensed code, but merely
>>writing an application conforming to an API whose only currently-existing
>>implementation is licensed under the LGPL (there are commercially-licened
>>versions of the library as well, for those who want them).
>>
>>It all hinges on the phrase “included within” - I do not consider a
>>third-party library, that is not distributed as part of an ASF release,
>>to fit within that definition, according to my understanding of the
>>English language (and I’m a native speaker). However, the relevant ASF
>>policy makers have a different interpretation. It’s extremely subtle -
>>basically the policy equivalent of an OpenSSL bug.
>
> I don't know how Qt is packaged, but AIUI, the CategoryX restriction does
> not apply to build tools and runtimes.  But whether you package it or
> download it, if using it places restrictions on your customers than that's
> a problem.

Last time we had this very Qt related discussion it was (I think!) Greg
who pointed out that you should probably use a viability argument for
something like Qt. Is your project still viable if something like Qt is
no longer available to it? (note it may be reduced functionality but
still viable)

If the answer is yes -- getting Qt from the runtime binding should be ok.
If the answer is no -- this wouldn't really be a self-contained ASF project,
would it?

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message