www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mario Ivankovits <ima...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache's LGPL Policy
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:04:18 GMT
>However, I think it's also not a bad idea to encourage other
>committers and interested folks on this list to voice their thoughts
>here as well.  I'll be listening.
This post do not add any value to the legal problem, but this describes 
what I would like to have.

Commons-VFS provides a single api to various filesystems.
If the user provides a library, e.g. commons-net it is possible to 
access ftp servers through this api.
If such a dependency is available is detected at runtime.

What I would like to say is: The core of Commons-VFS is fully 
functional, just the usable filesystems differ.
Now it would be great if it is allowed to depend on LGPL libraries for 
additional filesystem, even if I am forced to provide a separate jar for 
this filesystem (VFS allows plugins)

Say commons-vfs.jar is fully ASF compliant, but e.g commons-vfs-svn.jar 
(filesystem to access svn server - requires tmate library) is not.

So for sure this goes one step further, allow OPTIONAL code (as long as 
it lives in its own jar) to depend on ANY sort of licensed library.

As I said, this do not discuss the legal aspect, but it extends the 
possible dependency types.

a) Hard dependency (projects is not functional without the library)
b) Soft dependency (projects is partly functional, sources are in main 
c) Plugin dependency (project is full functional, but can be extended 
using external plugins)

I understand if we avoid a), b) IS the discussion, but why should c) be 
a problem for us?


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

View raw message