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 Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:45:34 GMT
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:29, Smiley, David W. <dsmiley@mitre.org> wrote:
>...
>..  So what's the problem?  Maybe it's on the ASL side, for which I've always thought
is more permissive than any kind of GPL.

The ALv2 (not ASL) *is* more permissive than the GPL. That isn't the problem.

The issue at hand is ASF policy, not the licensing. We do not want
(downstream) users to be surprised by needing code with licenses more
restrictive than the ALv2.

It sounds like builders and packagers would need more restrictive code
(LGPL), but the actual *users* of the software do not. That the
resulting package can be used and distributed *without* LGPL code. And
since the distribution has no LGPL code in it, then its reciprocal
licensing requirements do NOT come into play, and (thus) the ASF
policy is satisfied.

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