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 03:50:20 GMT
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 23:30, Smiley, David W. <dsmiley@mitre.org> 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.  The downstream user would not need anything more unless they want specific
optional functionality (I'd guess 1% of users).  If so they would have to go get JTS themselves,
or download the Lucene/Solr source and run a build which will grab it for them but they still
need to actually put it in the right place for how they choose to run Lucene/Solr.

I'm pretty sure that I undestand, from your explanation. And I believe
it is "okay" policy-wise. I simply think that it is a mistake for a
PMC to create any sort of dependency upon code that is more
restrictive than the Apache License. In this case, it means somebody
must grab LGPL code in order to build our provided tarball. I would
strongly advise against such a build dependency, whether the runtime
requires it or not.

-g

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


Mime
View raw message