Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 209.85.210.178 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: Building ASL code requiring LGPL 3rd party
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=vkh7dJORY9xqF5oxEoGq_ooYs=tcrwtab9GrN@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:29:16 -0700
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88488E3C-B135-4E0B-A281-D1CA6C0D06E2@dslextreme.com>
References: <C9B912DD.780A%dsmiley@mitre.org>
 <86D14AFB-F632-4177-9886-67F66C1C7F06@jpl.nasa.gov>
 <CA4A5C993E465A4292E14C850B2BBD2607244F084F@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
 <BBEA75BF-7114-47B7-B691-AF8AF2652B42@jpl.nasa.gov>
 <8CD4BAB3-E1E2-47D2-8C45-FFF4659C34D1@dslextreme.com>
 <AANLkTi=vkh7dJORY9xqF5oxEoGq_ooYs=tcrwtab9GrN@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>


On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 00:52, Ralph Goers =
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Yes, it's a compile time dependency.  I think I've been clear on =
that.
>>>=20
>>> No you haven't. You said it's optional. That's not strictly true =
since the LGPL infected code that's part of your patch would be part of =
the tarball that the Lucene project has distributed in the past (and =
will distribute) aka its contrib as part of its source.
>>=20
>> Technically that statement is not correct. The LGPL allows clients to =
reference the interfaces without the code itself having to be licensed =
under the LGPL, so there is no "infection" in this particular case.
>=20
> But the ASF has also stated that Java files are not "interfaces" or
> "headers", and that incorporating Java LGPL'd classes creates a
> derivative work and is, therefore, Not Allowed.


I don't recall ever seeing a statement such as that by the ASF.  When I =
mentioned "interfaces" I was speaking of the APIs the calling code uses =
from the LGPL Library.  In Java, these are indeed nothing more than =
interfaces until the Library is included, even if the caller is calling =
a method on a concrete class.

Section 5 of the LGPL 2.1 says "A program that contains no derivative of =
any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by =
being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the =
Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the =
Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License."  That =
changes once the application is combined with the Library.

If what you are saying was true then we wouldn't even allow them as =
optional dependencies, which we have just recently formally concluded we =
do.

Ralph


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