www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Smiley, David W." <dsmi...@mitre.org>
Subject Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:09:39 GMT
Sure; I know there are work-arounds like you propose, Ben. It was not clear to me wether it
was needed (or advised) to go through such a hassle.

In light of further clarifications (and apparent reversal of opinions) on ASF policy by Ralph
Goers and Greg Stein, I'm going to modify my patch so that the JTS using portion of its capability
is not required at build/test time (and of course runtime) unless the person doing the build
explicitly requests its use.  I'm not yet sure which particular means of many possible I'll
choose but I'll propose something within the Lucene/Solr community where that choice is pertinent.

~ David

On Mar 31, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

> 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
> 


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


Mime
View raw message