incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Release dependant on LGPL
Date Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:49:48 GMT
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in
> legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201602.mbox/%3C2A8B931C-1AD6-4230-B2DE-0B33361B3A2B%40jaguNET.com%3E

The LGPL's reverse engineering provisions make it more difficult to
understand the licensing obligations of any ostensibly
Apache-2-licensed product with an LGPL-licensed mandatory runtime
dependency.  Jim speaks for many of us in that thread.

However, one of the reasons we have the "incubating" label is to let
people know that "incubating" releases may not be fully compliant with
all Apache policies.

See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-86 for an example of
where incubating releases were allowed with a runtime dependency on a
non-approved license.  Just as Greg laid out, a plan was proposed for
removing the dependency before graduation and the VP Legal at the
time, Sam Ruby, gave his OK.

With LEGAL-86, VP Legal's approval was sought in advance, and in
general podlings should should be aware of resources like the
legal-discuss@apache list and should learn when and how to utilize
them. However, unless Greg advises Mynewt to consult VP Legal (and I'm
all but certain he won't), that won't be necessary in this case.

Marvin Humphrey

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


Mime
View raw message