www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Custine" <ccust...@apache.org>
Subject Re: More LGPL Questions
Date Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:51:33 GMT
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> The draft policy's intent is that the ServiceMix JBoss plugin would
> live at the ASF, distribute as a binary + source but without the LGPL
> dependencies being distributed by the ASF in any way.
>
> We've done this before; but not where it was expected to remain
> forever. Previously the LGPL dependency was something that the project
> moved away from over the medium term.
>
> The tricky part with regards to your question is that it's this
> scenario which is the major grey area of the current draft policy and
> the reason why it's still just a draft. While the policy remains a
> draft, I'm not sure we're going to have a very solid answer.  This
> does give us a great use case :)


So is this a PMC issue for individual projects at this point, or is there an
authoritative group that give a semi-official ruling here on legal-discuss?
I'm trying to figure out how to get warm fuzzies before pursuing this  :-)


>
> =-=
>
> The OpenInstaller issue is simpler. The LGPL'd works cannot be
> included in the installer, so if it's not an optional piece then we
> shouldn't use it. Unless we are happy to treat LGPL as an equal to
> MPL/CDDL/EPL etc, I don't see that answer changing.


Ok, I suspected this would be the answer so that is fine.  So the
clarification is that we do not distribute LGPL even if it is not a code
dependency of the project - period.


>
> Hen


Thanks for the input!
Chris


>
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> > Actually, after 10 more seconds of thinking about it I think I want to
> >  add that your situation is the poster child for exactly what I believe
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Erubys/3party.html>
> >  <http://people.apache.org/%7Erubys/3party.html> was trying to achieve
> >  when it was created.  In your case the end user has already decided
> that
> >  they are going to use JBoss, so they are obviously OK with its license.
> >  All you are doing is provide the necessary integration glue between
> >  ServiceMix and JBoss - without making them go to some external site to
> >  get it.
> >
> >
> >  Ralph Goers wrote:
> >  > I can't see why any of what you are proposing would be a problem.
>  But
> >  > I would wait and see if someone from the board responds.
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  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