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 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:08:34 GMT

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:38 -0700, "Ralph Goers"
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Again: avoidance is generally the best approach. Or a very strict
>> approach of "only if the user *requests* this, then we'll
>> incorporate it" rather than mandatory or auto-detect options.
>
> I should have also replied to this.  While we may differ in our
> reasoning I think our conclusions are the same as I agree with
> the statement above.

This is the sentiment that I was attempting to get to in my original
rhetorical question. While something may be "possible", it may not be
"desirable". Adding a LGPL dependency is a significant thing for an ASF
project with many ramifications, and something that should be done with
great care, if at all.

Upayavira

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


Mime
View raw message