www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: ASL Only Distribution Policy [was Apache's LGPL Policy]
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:18:41 GMT
Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote on 08/03/2005 02:13:57 AM:
> On 8/2/05, Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > So, if I understand correctly, there is no redistribution problem at 
all
> > from the legal side of things other than the ASF does not want LGPL 
jars
> > distributed??
> > 
> > To be clear, both ASF and FSF lawyers agree that:
> > * Importing classes from an LGPL jar does not create a derivitive work
> > or require the work to be licensed under the LGPL
> 
> FSF has agreed that importing classes from an LGPL jar does not
> require licensing of the work to be restricted in any way.
> 
> > * Including an LGPL jar in a distribution does not create a derivitive
> > work or require the work to be licensed under the LGPL
> 
> The FSF would say that, in the case of the distribution being another
> .jar (or .zip or .tgz), section 5 still covers the case.
> 
> > * Section 6 is NOT invoked
> 
> yep
> 

Just a note of caution.  The FSF is certainly the author of the license 
and their opinions and writings on the meaning of that license are very 
important.  However, at the end of the day, the author of the LGPL 
licensed code may have an opinion on what these terms mean.  Since the 
meaning of these terms are highly "nuanced", to say the least, we would 
want to consider the opinions of the LGPL software's authors as well.

Jeff

Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/ 


Mime
View raw message