www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:13:01 GMT
On 3/31/2011 1:36 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not advocating that Lucene should accept the patch and certainly not as is.
  The fundamental question that is pointed out in resolved.html is "Will the majority of users
want to use my product without adding the optional components?".  You should infer from this
that the dependency should be optional both in the build and at runtime. If that is not desirable
then a solution with a more appropriate license should be used.

Actually, there isn't much precedent for disallowing build-time dependencies.

Most C/C++ language products today are relying on autoconf/automake which are
most certainly GPL projects without realistic non-copyleft alternatives, and
as the *artifacts* of those builds are clearly excluded there is no issue here.

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

View raw message