www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: [jira] Closed: (LEGAL-9) Is it allowed for a project to ship the LGPL Hibernate jar as part of a distribution, with no sources or any other bits of Hibernate included?
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:24:22 GMT
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:23 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/06/2008, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Martijn Dashorst
>> <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > As a thought experiment, how could the Apache Wicket ship a Hibernate
>>  > sub project? For example an optional library that provides transparent
>>  > integration between Wicket and Hibernate. This module would only be
>>  > used by folks already using Hibernate and would not add any dependency
>>  > to hibernate for non-module users.
>>  >
>>  > Would Apache Wicket be able to:
>>  > 1 - create such a module?
>>  > 2 - provide a pom for the module with an automatic dependency on
>>  > Hibernate, where someone depending on the module would automatically
>>  > download and depend on Hibernate
>>  > 3 - provide a couple of examples in an example project that showcases
>>  > the module therefore be dependent on hibernate, in source form
>>  > 4 - provide the examples in a complete WAR archive, including the
>>  > necessary Hibernate libraries to run the examples
>>  >
>>  > In my understanding of this thread, we would be allowed to do 1, 2,
>>  > and 3 but not 4. I do think this is unfortunate, as examples are
>>  > rarely depended upon directly but are used as a learning aid.
>> I believe that 1 through 4, inclusive would be fine.
>>  Optional, clearly documented, and easily removed is generally OK.  And
>>  I'll go further and indicate that there is a lot of 'wiggle room' on
>>  the 'easily' part.
> So are you saying that it is OK to ship LGPL jars, provided that they
> are optional, documented and removable?

That is not what I meant by the above statement.  I am not willing to
yet declare consensus that it is OK for the ASF to ship Hibernate, nor
do I expect to be at that point in the forseeable future.  That's not
to say that it can't happen, it just means that I don't see it as
something that we will be doing any time soon.

As I see it, #3 wasn't about shipping hibernate, but about shipping
some examples that depend on hibernate.  I can find lawyers who will
state that there is nothing that prevents such examples from being
licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.  I can find other
lawyers for which that situation isn't quite so obvious.

But if we are talking about examples, examples which are clearly
marked as such and on what the depend on, examples that can be removed
without any loss of function, then I see no issue.  At worst case,
those examples themselves may need to be covered by the LGPL.  That is
something that we legally are entitled to do.  And when that amount of
code is small, clearly optional, and illustrates how to make use of a
larger codebase that is covered under the Apache License, Version 2.0,
then I see no reason to make a policy which prevents such beneficial
examples from being make available.

> To my mind this contradicts the response to LEGAL-9, and
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
> I know a project (HttpComponents) that would like to use LGPL code
> (Samba JCIFS).

I'm confident that we can work something out.  Take a look at


In particular, approximation 3.

- Sam Ruby

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