www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:12:19 GMT
On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> On Mar 31, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> It isn't.  If you don't distribute the LGPL'd library then the LGPL library restrictions
don't apply.  This is why it may be acceptable as an optional runtime dependency. However,
Greg is quite right that users would normally expect that there default compile and build
would not include anything that isn't wholly compatible with the Apache license. Some organizations
use open source management tools that prevent any software under prohibited licenses from
being brought in to the environment. In these cases they would be unable to build the project.
That is unacceptable.
> This issue is 'optional'... If the codebase is designed to do A, B and
> C, and not-including the "optional" package prevents it from
> doing B, then it is a dependency we don't want to impose on our
> downstream users and developers.

+1 Jim, thanks, that's my point. This is a stated feature of the project and has been for
a while, and the patch under discussion pulls in an LGPL library for (parts of) that feature.


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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

View raw message