www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Upayavira" ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:12:48 GMT


On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:45 -0400, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:29, Smiley, David W. <dsmiley@mitre.org>
> wrote:
> >...
> >..  So what's the problem?  Maybe it's on the ASL side, for which I've always thought
is more permissive than any kind of GPL.
> 
> The ALv2 (not ASL) *is* more permissive than the GPL. That isn't the
> problem.
> 
> The issue at hand is ASF policy, not the licensing. We do not want
> (downstream) users to be surprised by needing code with licenses more
> restrictive than the ALv2.
> 
> It sounds like builders and packagers would need more restrictive code
> (LGPL), but the actual *users* of the software do not. That the
> resulting package can be used and distributed *without* LGPL code. And
> since the distribution has no LGPL code in it, then its reciprocal
> licensing requirements do NOT come into play, and (thus) the ASF
> policy is satisfied.

The next question (asked somewhat rhetorically) is whether a project
would want to accept such code.

And this, I see is for each project to decide. To my mind, it would be
quite acceptable for a project to refuse such code, because they want
their complete distribution to be Apache Licensed (with no
downloads/etc). While it may technically be possible and be acceptable
within ASF policy doesn't mean a project *should* accept the code.

Upayavira

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


Mime
View raw message