www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Justin Erenkrantz" <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: Status of dependency on LGPL'd library (Was: Re: [Legal] Why is this LGPL notice file in our SVN?)
Date Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:23:19 GMT
On Jan 25, 2008 6:22 AM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The sticky wicket here is the last part of your paragraph, "it's free to
> reverse engineer or debug ASL'd stuff we distribute".  This isn't really
> true. Vendors can take Apache licensed code and incorporate it into
> their own proprietary works. They may not wish to allow any part of what
> they distribute to be reverse engineered.  So we could have a problem
> with that. Frankly, this scenario doesn't worry me a whole lot simply
> because the use of the LGPL'd library must be an optional feature to the
> ASF project. So any company with such a requirement would almost
> certainly not want to use the optional feature.

IIRC, our past policy discussions around the LGPL have centered on the
fact that all of our code must continue to be reversed engineered (in
toto) if any LGPL code is linked in.  I'm not overly excited about

Since I wondered if LGPLv3 changed that, it looks like it is similarly
confused...but more interesting is that the LGPLv3
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html) now *requires* also
bundling the GPLv3 license text with it.  That's very very subversive
and very confusion-prune.  Ugh.  -- justin

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