www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "dandiep@apache.org" <dand...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache's LGPL Policy
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:51:38 GMT
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
http://netzooid.com



-- 
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


Mime
View raw message