Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 92049 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2008 18:52:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2008 18:52:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 83050 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2008 18:52:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 82848 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2008 18:51:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 82833 invoked by uid 99); 24 Feb 2008 18:51:59 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:51:59 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chris.custine@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.186 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.198.186] (HELO rv-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.198.186) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:51:26 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g11so1082862rvb.29 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=HdavU0qAz709I5PG4Vi94diet45B+BpETuRgTgOgNok=; b=imu6QQzgXvsynGwHBWXM/W1Ylip8HD4a2LTwCnyXxTrK8GnuKYv/yBbJAo/axYWZ+yfLvJql11eeVrAIqF/K5iGk4dUOiBh9PzzWb8U4Z1itzRzDbOrKNYZ6hd272tdplX2BWEeLNZ6brPoaQF7urRHnlFQ6WNv7fjn/IChxQQ4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ugFcBSeEgCExOoeQjofe7kk/awUVVndhcEVjoYco7rl9OHb9/fNMvhknOJm0n8e7th5UQekSEDIlMc9RTPoG0MOWhgEkIdFTZxYm1toSQOJvziDDzwtFJgXnRQjoH+aNhPb75EDmW6ZFugY4/mtHzHahbbh6lCFsKZIHMt2v7Zs= Received: by 10.141.205.10 with SMTP id h10mr1319442rvq.138.1203879093682; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.202.11 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:51:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <43b026c70802241051j5fe81428g131a84b287d2db58@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:51:33 -0700 From: "Chris Custine" Sender: chris.custine@gmail.com To: "Henri Yandell" Subject: Re: More LGPL Questions Cc: rgoers@apache.org, "Legal Discuss" In-Reply-To: <2d12b2f00802232319k28ec429cm8fda242dabcb163a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_9030_32141257.1203879093688" References: <47C08FE7.9080700@dslextreme.com> <43b026c70802231400h48ac808en279c07aa8a71f54@mail.gmail.com> <47C0A606.3020102@dslextreme.com> <47C0A81F.8080005@dslextreme.com> <2d12b2f00802232319k28ec429cm8fda242dabcb163a@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 12b06751db819776 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_9030_32141257.1203879093688 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Henri Yandell 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 > 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 > > 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 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 > > > > > ------=_Part_9030_32141257.1203879093688 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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> 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
>
>

------=_Part_9030_32141257.1203879093688--