www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mario Ivankovits <ima...@apache.org>
Subject Adding LGPL library to Jakarta projects - Commons-VFS as reference
Date Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:57:13 GMT

Motivated by a personal discussion with Cliff during the ApacheCon EU
2006 I kicked a thread at pmc@jakarta about the rules how to add LGPL
stuff to our projects.

The vote passed with 17 +1, 2 -0 and 1 -1.
Which means in general the PMC at Jakarta agreed on the rules when and
how to add a LGPL library to a Jakarta project.
I put the rules in our wiki at
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/Using_LGPL'd_code (section: Latest
LGPL@jakarta informations (2006) - I'll remove the rest of the page
after the final approvement)

To make it easier I'll paste the rules once again here:

1) ask the original library author to change its license or provide a
double licensing model
2) look for an alternative implementation with an ASF friendly license
3) the build script BY DEFAULT excludes java classes depending on LGPL
4) a special parameter will enable building these classes
5) its not allowed to bundle the LGPL library with any distribution
(nightly, release)
6) the function the library gains from the LGPL stuff is fully optional
7) a bridging api (which can reside within the same project - so can be
hosted at apache) will be used to access these LGPL stuff to clearly
show its optional behaviour
8) a vote for adding a LGPL dependency to a project on pmc@

Is this the correct and acceptable way?

Together with this vote we voted to allow the JCIFS library
(http://jcifs.samba.org/) being a dependency for VFS. This library
allows access to windows shares.
The briding API in VFS is located in the org.apache.commons.vfs.provider
This vote passed with 14 +1

As you might notice this code already exist. It was there before I pick
up VFS and IMHO sometimes in the past the license of the JCIFS library
changed to LGPL without noticing it.

Now, if legal approve the above rules I'll start setup the VFS build to
match rule 3+4 all other rules are already achieved.

Some more words to the -0/-1 during the "LGPL rules":

Well, during the discussion it was often the talk about "GPL and LGPL"
or "(L)GPL" - so we somehow mixed those both licenses.
IF legal@ approve our procedure, I think it would be nice if legal@
could setup a short wiki about the WHY we allow it (especially for the
LGPL thing (not GPL) - something easy to read  ;-)  ) so that big
companies can follow our argumentation more easily and maybe don't have
that much problems with projects gaining functionality from optional
LGPL libraries.

I think this is a serious concern we have to address. Companies should
not have the impression the ASF license is somehow tampered with such a
If we don't manage to express our thoughts it might be best to cancel
this thing.

Legal@, you have the last word  ;-) 


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message