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 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:24:18 GMT
On Jan 22, 2008 8:29 PM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >
> > Again, Cliff's words:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-optional
> >
> > Tell me if you read them differently than I do, or have suggestions on
> > how the draft should change.
> >
> >
>  I read them differently.
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-lgpl
> says that LGPL works must not be "included" in Apache projects. (quotes
> are mine around a somewhat ambiguous term). This may simply mean that if
> the jar does not reside anywhere at Apache this section has been
> complied with.
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-optional. What is
> an "add-on"? The way I read the wording is that the add-on is something
> licensed under the LGPL. This would imply that it is NOT Apache authored
> code but the jar containing the LGPL'd work.  By this interpretation it
> is perfectly fine to have code at Apache that contains imports of LGPL'd
> interfaces so long as the LGPL'd code itself doesn't reside at Apache.
> To me the implication is that a default build of the project should
> never build this optional piece that requires the LGPL'd work. In order
> for someone to build it they must be required to find the instructions
> along with the public notice of the license restrictions.

Almost - the line was that a default build must not _silently_ build
this optional piece. ie) C based implementations had to make the LGPL
a --allow-config-param type thing, and Java implementations tended to
just fall over dead and not build. The user HAD to be the one choosing
to put the library in place, not us.

Trickier quesiton on a Ant/Ivy/Maven build that uses the Maven
repository though - getting LGPL through there would not pass the
'user is aware' bit.

> Whether this interpretation is what Cliff actually intended is another
> matter. I just know that one of the reasons the discussion began was the
> strong desire to be able to support the use of Hibernate in some of the
> projects.

Yup - and we distributed Hibernate dependent code (but not Hibernate
itself) with old versions of Roller.


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