metamodel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras
Date Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:05:17 GMT
I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all.
Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so,
called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are
entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way dependency.


2013/12/7 Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>

> Thanks!
>
> This thread is relevant:
>
>
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results
>
> And so is this:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
>
> My take is:
>
> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
> entirely optional.
>
> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
> an exemption.
>
> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
> >> as we communicate this very precisely.
> >>
> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
> >>
> >
> > AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option is to
> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache community.  I
> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
> > has arisen.
> >
> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
> >
> >
> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
> >> <i.am.kasper.sorensen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of
> MetaModel)
> >> we
> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
> >> >
> >> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
> >> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
> >> >  * MS Access databases
> >> >
> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so
> they
> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now
> they're
> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would
> >> like
> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available
> with a
> >> > name like "MetaModel extras".
> >> >
> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted
> to
> >> ask
> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
> >> modules.
> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and
> for
> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > Kasper
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Noah Slater
> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message