www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:05:33 GMT
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.

This is why the LGPL is so troublesome here at the ASF. Its
definitions are pretty weak, which results in language-dependent
interpretations.

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.

Cheers,
-g

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


Mime
View raw message