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 12:53:55 GMT
Which is why I explained the technology of *real* optional. A true
'optional' dependency is one where you can download the source and
build it without ever letting the optional component inside your
firewall. There are many examples of this sort of thing all around the
ASF, it's completely stupid for this list to be wasting electrons
debating a long-solved issue.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This issue is 'optional'... If the codebase is designed to do A, B and
> C, and not-including the "optional" package prevents it from
> doing B, then it is a dependency we don't want to impose on our
> downstream users and developers.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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