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: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:37:01 GMT
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:

>
> Then I have a use case. Actually two. The Buildr podling is a Ruby project,
> it's a Java build tool so it needs a Java runtime to compile and run tests
> for example. Using the java and javac commands is too slow. So it's using
> two different options:
>
> A module called RJB (Ruby Java Bridge) that relies on JNI and is LGPL
> licensed.
> JRuby which lets you pick your license: GPL, LGPL or CPL.
> The way we've handled this for now is to consider 1) optional (as you can
> rely on 2)) and 2) environmental, just like the ruby runtime is considered
> environmental. Or the JDK itself for that matter. Note that we don't even
> need to ship 1) because Ruby has its own package manager that takes care of
> checking your dependencies and installing them for you.
>
> Now the questions would be:
>
> Is 1) really kosher? We don't ship anything and still it's optional but the
> other options is CPL at best.

Using our draft-policy, CPL is considered more acceptable than LGPL.
If Option 2 is a problem, then our use of JUnit is a big problem and
we've a lot of deleting to do. So I think JRuby usage is fine.

The RJB option - it seems like another Hibernate type option. Could
you add it to the OpenLegalQuestions page as another LGPL use case?

> Could we ship a release already pre-bundled with JRuby, which contains both
> binaries and scripts as source files?

That would be an open question to add to the OpenLegalQuestions page.
Good use case. It's blocked by needing to have the discussion on CPL
source redistribution. Given the various other conversations -
probably one to hold off right now.

>  We've also had some fun thinking whether monkey patching 2) could be
> considered as modification of the original source. We've saved some brain
> power by doing without monkey patching ;-)

Yep, that would be a fun use case. I think it'd probably end up much
like the CDDL binary question the other day - the intent is that our
monkey patches are under the original license and we'd have to make
sure we were happy with it for that use case.

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