www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:16 GMT

On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 00:52, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes, it's a compile time dependency.  I think I've been clear on that.
>>> 
>>> No you haven't. You said it's optional. That's not strictly true since the LGPL
infected code that's part of your patch would be part of the tarball that the Lucene project
has distributed in the past (and will distribute) aka its contrib as part of its source.
>> 
>> Technically that statement is not correct. The LGPL allows clients to reference the
interfaces without the code itself having to be licensed under the LGPL, so there is no "infection"
in this particular case.
> 
> But the ASF has also stated that Java files are not "interfaces" or
> "headers", and that incorporating Java LGPL'd classes creates a
> derivative work and is, therefore, Not Allowed.


I don't recall ever seeing a statement such as that by the ASF.  When I mentioned "interfaces"
I was speaking of the APIs the calling code uses from the LGPL Library.  In Java, these are
indeed nothing more than interfaces until the Library is included, even if the caller is calling
a method on a concrete class.

Section 5 of the LGPL 2.1 says "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is
called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work
of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License."  That changes once
the application is combined with the Library.

If what you are saying was true then we wouldn't even allow them as optional dependencies,
which we have just recently formally concluded we do.

Ralph



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


Mime
View raw message