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 04:58:27 GMT

On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> 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:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> 
> 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 products."
> 
> That seems pretty clear to me.

It isn't.  If you don't distribute the LGPL'd library then the LGPL library restrictions don't
apply.  This is why it may be acceptable as an optional runtime dependency. However, Greg
is quite right that users would normally expect that there default compile and build would
not include anything that isn't wholly compatible with the Apache license. Some organizations
use open source management tools that prevent any software under prohibited licenses from
being brought in to the environment. In these cases they would be unable to build the project.
That is unacceptable.

Ralph


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


Mime
View raw message