www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Status of dependency on LGPL'd library (Was: Re: [Legal] Why is this LGPL notice file in our SVN?)
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:56:39 GMT
On Jan 22, 2008 5:24 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 10:11 PM, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2008 11:45 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 21, 2008 5:26 AM, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I know LGPL is somewhat an old topic, but it's still puzzling me, so
> > > > please bear with me a little bit. :)
> > > >
> > > > I am forwarding this thread to legal-discuss@a.o just to be sure and
> > > > find out what MINA PMC has to do with the RXTX dependency.  Here's
> > > > some background:
> > > >
> > > > * One of MINA's submodule depends on RXTX library (http://www.rxtx.org/).
> > > > * RXTX is LGPL'd with an exception clause.
> > > > (http://users.frii.com/jarvi/rxtx/license.html)
> > > > * We are using Maven so the generated tarball doesn't contain any RXTX
> > > > source code or binary (i.e. JAR).
> > > > * However, Maven 2 fetches the RXTX binary automatically when a user
> > > > enters 'mvn compile' command.
> > > > * We didn't tag any official release or publish any distributions yet.
> > > >  (we have some Maven snapshots though)
> > > > * Another worthwhile read: http://tinyurl.com/28hmfj
> > >
> > > Regarding that last link, that resolution was tabled.  What it
> > > eventually evolved into can be found here:
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html
> > >
> > > > Now the somewhat overlapping questions...
> > > >
> > > > 1) Do we need to move our submodule outside of the ASF or not?
> > > > 2) Is there any way to distribute the submodule with the official MINA
> > > > release as of now?
> > >
> > > Two questions first:
> > > 1) Can Mina meaningfully operate, possibly with a only a subset of
> > > functionality, without the presence of this dependency?
> >
> > Yes.  The functionality that depends on RXTX is completely optional.
> >
> > > 2) Does this submodule "communicate with RXTX solely through the Sun
> > > Microsytems [sice] CommAPI interface version 2"?
> >
> > No, it directly imports gnu.* package.
>
> What a pity, as this would have changed the answer.  But given the
> answers above, the answers to your two questions relative to the
> current draft ASF Third Party Licensing policy is
>
> > > > 1) Do we need to move our submodule outside of the ASF or not?
>
> Yes.

Why again?

I've not figured out what differences there are between the rubys
3rdparty and the cliffs one, but I thought it was fine for code to
depend on LGPL as it did not make our code LGPL.

> > > > 2) Is there any way to distribute the submodule with the official MINA
> > > > release as of now?
>
> Not directly.  See the bullets relating to excluded licenses in the
> section on Optional Add-ons in the following web page:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#options-optional

? Again, I thought we could distribute our submodule, but not the LGPL
code it depends on. To get that optional feature to work, the user
would have to manually find the LGPL work (we'll supply a link) and go
get it before they have that feature.

Hen

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