www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:37:30 GMT
There is a tecnological solution which would take all the hot air out
of the barrage of balloons.

Don't have a compile-time dependency. Java has reflection for,
sometimes it seems, this very purpose. Create code that makes a
classloader, loads JTS and an apache-licenced shim, and delivers an
apache-licensed interface. Functionally identical to end users, and
nothing LGPL pulls into the build. And we can all put our tomatos back
into the soup queue.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message