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 04:12:31 GMT
On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:

> When you say "downstream users expect Apache-licensed code", ... I thought you were clear
on understanding what my proposed patch would do.  Lucene/Solr is Apache-licensed code and
so is my patch.

You're proposing to a contribute a patch to an ASF code base, where your patch includes compile
time dependencies on LGPL code that are clearly identified on this page:


As software that is a Category X license, specifically:

"The LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places on larger works, violating
the third license criterion. Therefore, LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache

That seems pretty clear to me.

>  The downstream user would not need anything more unless they want specific optional
functionality (I'd guess 1% of users).

Where did you pull that # from? I'd be shocked if only 1% of the users of Lucene and Solr
care about spatial search? If it's that unpopular it's amazing that it came up as a bullet
to include in the release announcement for Lucene/Solr 3.1:


>  If so they would have to go get JTS themselves, or download the Lucene/Solr source and
run a build which will grab it for them but they still need to actually put it in the right
place for how they choose to run Lucene/Solr.

But they'd have a contrib module in their source distribution of Lucene/Solr that includes
compile time dependencies on a Category X license, whether they use it or not.


> From: Greg Stein [gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:45 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Smiley, David W.; private@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 17:56, Smiley, David W. <dsmiley@mitre.org> wrote:
>> ...
>> I should have acknowledged your noble involvement with the ASF so as to
>> not hurt your feelings, but nonetheless my statement is true.  But being
> Wow. You are an asshole. You have been incredibly impolite towards
> Chris. That just isn't the type of personality we like to see at
> Apache. Personally, I wouldn't want you as a committer or on the PMC.
> And I am not authoritative here. That is Sam Ruby. Even though I think
> your proposed JTS build requirement might "pass ASF policy", I would
> *officially* (with my Director hat on) discourage the Lucene PMC from
> accepting such a dependency. Downstream users expect Apache-licensed
> code, and this would be a surprise.
> -g
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

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