www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ASL Only Distribution Policy [was Apache's LGPL Policy]
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:17:47 GMT
Dan,

we'd need to make source code available if we ship lgpl jars.

-- dims

On 8/2/05, dandiep@apache.org <dandiep@apache.org> wrote:
> Of course I forgot to rename the thread. Please reply here.
> 
> dandiep@apache.org wrote:
> 
> > Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> KEY POINT (but should maybe be a different thread):
> >> Distributing software that is licensed under terms that are not part
> >> of the Apache License (whether in isolation or bundled) is currently
> >> against ASF policy.  It's not a problem with the LGPL; it's a matter
> >> of the expectation we have set up with our users.  Over the years, our
> >> users have come to expect that when they point to http://apache.org,
> >> follow a link to an Apache project, and then click download, they are
> >> getting software licensed under the Apache License.  Of course, they
> >> should read the LICENSE file, especially if they are redistributing
> >> it, but so far (with few, if any, exceptions), users have been able to
> >> rely on the fact that Apache always ships software that that includes
> >> terms they are familiar with, which put relatively few restrictions on
> >> the personal or commercial redistribution of the software.  This is
> >> why we don't ship LGPL software in any form at all -- not because
> >> there's a trick in the LGPL license, but simply because it would not
> >> allow the package to be distributed solely under the terms of the
> >> Apache License.
> >>
> >> NOTE: if you want to raise an issue about the above policy, feel free,
> >> but please start a new thread since it is orthogonal to the policy of
> >> being able to distribute software that simply requires the LGPL
> >> library to be present.
> >>
> >>
> > Consider this raising an issue in a new thread. :-)
> >
> > I'm confused, can't projects already put non ASL licensed jars in
> > their distributions (Sun BCL, CPL, and MPL - see
> > http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/LicenceIssues)?
> >
> > Then, why is redistributing LGPL jars a problem if "research into the
> > impact of distributing ASF products that depend on the  presence of
> > LGPL-licensed libraries has indicated that the product licensing terms
> > are not affected by such a dependency"?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Dan
> 
> 
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions LLC
> http://netzooid.com
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message