www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Garrett Rooney" <roo...@electricjellyfish.net>
Subject Re: RXTX library and ASL
Date Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:57:00 GMT
On 4/21/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> Garrett Rooney a écrit :
>
> > On 4/21/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ceki Gulcu a écrit :
> >>
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > This is new to me. Can anyone else confirm the statement "until you
> >> > don't distribute the LGPL libraries, you can depend on it"  ?
> >>
> >> I think you can't, as stated in http://wiki.apache.org/old/Licensing :
> >> "...LGPL - Shall *not* use either Java import or C #include. Shall *not*
> >> /static/ link. ..."
> >>
> >> So you can't use Interfaces declared in a LGPL program, it seems.
> >>
> >> But this is not clear... The mentionned threadis 100 mails long, and
> >> full of other considerations.
> >>
> >> I would suggest we ask Clifft during ApacheCon in May, so we have a
> >> clear answer.
> >>
> >> Incidentally, Ceki, this raise an issue with your new Logback library.
> >> Any way for you to switch back to the 'old good' ASL license ?
> >
> >
> > Umm, anything in that wiki page strikes me as having the potential to
> > be very out of date.
> >
> > The most up to date info on this sort of thing is currently:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>
> Thanks, Garrett.
>
> This extract from the mentionned link :
>
>
>         "LGPL
>
> The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html#category-b> (a category
> that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to the
> restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third license
> criterion <http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html#criterion3>.
> Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be included in Apache
> products, although they may be listed as system requirements
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html#options-systemrequirements>
> or distributed elsewhere as optional works
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html#options-optional>."
>
> I think that the last sentence is pretty clear to me : either you write
> your own interface, or you accept compilation errors (up to the user to
> download the LGPL lib interface), but you should not include any part of
> this LGPL project into the repo.
>
> Is that correct ?

I believe so, yes.  You absolutely cannot ship any LGPL code along
with your releases.  If users provide a version of that code
themselves it's fine to have functionality that depends on it,
although in general that sort of thing should be discouraged if
possible.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message