incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: External dependencies (was Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:39:33 GMT
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:09, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:59:12 +0200, Mathias Bauer <>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that nowhere in the
>> code repository we can have code that links against LGPL code. And of
>> course extensions are part of our code base also.

The repository can contain code that is licensed with a permissive
license (ALv2, MIT, BSD). Of course, we try to have only "our" code,
but over in httpd is a copy of PCRE, and APR has a copy of Expat.
Stuff that is not "our" code must be listed in the NOTICE file.

We cannot have any code in the repository that has a reciprocal license.

> We can link LGPL'd code (Qt and GTK are examples) we just can't
> carry it.

We can only link to LGPL'd code *if* directed by a build flag. It
cannot be a required dependency.

In short: the product must be capable WITHOUT that LGPL'd library.

That said, I believe that Qt and GTK fall into the "base operating
system library" exclusion to that rule.

>> Some filters do it this way, some don't. So some may become
>> extensions, some can't. Usually it is quite some work to do to get
>> filter code into a state that allows to use the filter as an
>> extension. Must be checked for each filter individually.
> If we can't move it to extension we may be able to make the build
> conditional anyways. Something like:
>     ./configure --with-binfilter


> but LGPL dependencies have to be moved out of the tree.

They can stay in the tree, as long as they are optional (as you point
out: build flag, or a runtime config or load, or something).



View raw message