www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: LGPL software behind an isolation layer
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:36:55 GMT

On Aug 25, 2009, at 6:54 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>> I was discussing this issue with a friend and he mentioned the case  
>> of
>> Apache APR.  What does APR do with the mother of all libraries,  
>> namely
>> libc, which is licensed under the LGPL? Looking at the source code of
>> APR, it seems to me that APR does link with glibc, or?
> This has all been asked and answered, glibc and autoconf, on the  
> relevant
> httpd and later the apr mailing lists.
> In short, we don't, it's not a hard dependency, it is a user-selected
> dependency.  If you don't like it, download another libc  
> implementation;
> there are plenty of choices under various licenses.
> If the ASF were to ship a binary with glibc statically compiled, it  
> would
> not pose a problem as long as it is not a privately forked glibc.  The
> source is available from the FSF and reverse engineering is  
> permitted for
> ASF works.

This is not consistent with the position I have seen the legal  
committee take for years. Although reverse engineering of Apache code  
is allowable under the Apache license, it may not be under licenses  
our users choose to use.  And there are many cases where using such a  
library could require that the user of Apache's software must provide  
access to their source code so that reverse engineering can take place.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message