www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:42:13 GMT
++1. It prevents end-users and developers from obtaining/using/distributing
the code under the AL.

On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:01 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> "JTS becomes required to build & test Lucene/Solr"
> 
> I don't see how that fits under the "optional" terms. My read is that
> a *required* LGPL library is verboten.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 22:23, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> What you are describing sounds exactly like what http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
was intended to answer.  You timing is pretty good since that issue was resolved and added
to the page roughly a week ago.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello.
>>> 
>>> I've been involved with Lucene & Solr for some time.  I'm working on enhancing
its support for geospatial search. I have java code in a patch in JIRA SOLR-2155 but I'm seeking
that it get committed.  The patch uses the LGPL licensed Java Topology Suite (JTS) library
for part of its functionality.  That part is segmented in the code such that if JTS is not
included with Lucene/Solr at runtime then Lucene/Solr will still work, and even the rest of
my patch that doesn't use it.  I modified Lucene/Solr's ant based build script to automatically
downloads the JTS jar so that Lucene/Solr with my patch will compile and tests will run. 
This is triggered by default in the build  -- i.e. JTS becomes required to build & test
Lucene/Solr.  The patch *does not* cause JTS to be included in any packaged deliverable of
Lucene/Solr.
>>> 
>>> Will the inclusion of my patch as I described in Lucene/Solr violate the terms
of applicable licensed software, namely Apache & LGPL?  This is the key question I wish
to get adjudicated by authorities at the ASF.  I've read these sources already, carefully:
>>>       http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>       http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-examples-lgpl
>>>       http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3C768dcb2e0801240130v604f0088w5781db2d889f5581@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>> 
>>> These references are not 100% clear on this matter, but in my opinion I get the
sense that my approach is satisfactory.  But IANAL (I'm sure that comes up often on this list!),
and uncertainly amongst at least two others on the Lucene/Solr list remains.  I wish to get
this settled.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> ~ David Smiley
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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