Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <1301501568.3245.1435580245@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Upayavira" <uv@odoko.co.uk>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikpEY+a8Or+OxQYEnffFD_jx-w9bwgdAQjPbrNS@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <3B3A5D2C-6AF9-4B33-BBB8-99C8346CFAC3@mitre.org><34667B37-A7C6-4BD3-9B24-B9F5E980FF9C@dslextreme.com><AANLkTin62GOUqrq=eCouTdR0Gk4eUsfim3EZDc0z0VR9@mail.gmail.com><9A732864-2163-41B1-94F2-818FFF708D4E@dslextreme.com><AANLkTik4KjoCVr7dLMkrkMWvY+NL=KJf7=8+sTUhUxLv@mail.gmail.com><B456F32F-D66B-4275-8260-AD456F1EA877@mitre.org>
 <AANLkTikpEY+a8Or+OxQYEnffFD_jx-w9bwgdAQjPbrNS@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:12:48 +0100


On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:45 -0400, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:29, Smiley, David W. <dsmiley@mitre.org>
> wrote:
> >...
> >.. =A0So what's the problem? =A0Maybe it's on the ASL side, for which I'=
ve always thought is more permissive than any kind of GPL.
>=20
> The ALv2 (not ASL) *is* more permissive than the GPL. That isn't the
> problem.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

The next question (asked somewhat rhetorically) is whether a project
would want to accept such code.

And this, I see is for each project to decide. To my mind, it would be
quite acceptable for a project to refuse such code, because they want
their complete distribution to be Apache Licensed (with no
downloads/etc). While it may technically be possible and be acceptable
within ASF policy doesn't mean a project *should* accept the code.

Upayavira

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