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 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:52:50 GMT
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Garrett Rooney
>  > <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>  > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Sam Ruby
>  > <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  >  While people may differ on the answer to that
>  > particular question, I
>  > >  >  am completely comfortable with a product like
>  > ServiceMix shipping a
>  > >  >  completely optional and easily identifiable
>  > and removable plugin to
>  > >  >  support a product like JBOSS in a manner
>  > analogous to the current
>  > >  >  support it provides for Geronimo.  And I've
>  > not heard a single person
>  > >  >  say otherwise.
>  > >
>  > >  +1
>  >
>  > +1.
>  >
>  > I'd be happiest seeing the plugin as a separate
>  > download to the main
>  > ServiceMix download.
>
>
> Why?  AFAICT JBoss' interpretation of the LGPL does
>  not appear to conflate use with making derivative
>  works:
>
>   http://www.jboss.com/pdf/Why_We_Use_the_LGPL.pdf
>
>  It is similar in spirit to Hibernate's interpretation,
>  not the FSF's.

My understanding of the reason why we have LGPL lower in the draft
policy than MPL/CDDL etc is that it affects the whole package. Given
that, I would want to limit the size of the whole package it is
included in.

Having a separate download - I'm fine for it to be both binary +
source - makes it more obvious to the user by providing a separate
place to prominently point out the licensing and avoids deciding on
the issue above from blocking an answer on this subject.

Basically I'm wanting to play it safe as we start making these decisions.

As to interpretations - I think you should use those when necessary,
and am not convinced this is such a time. It's a nice statement - but
does it actually cover the issues that lead to LGPL not being
considered akin to MPL/CDDL? I don't know, and wouldn't want to hold
up the answer by digging into that. Rather I'd prefer to make that an
open question that we work on.

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