www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marvin Humphrey (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-86) Artistic License / CPAN dependencies
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:54:32 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-86?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13137531#comment-13137531
] 

Marvin Humphrey commented on LEGAL-86:
--------------------------------------

With the resolution of LUCY-133 and LUCY-134, Lucy svn trunk no longer has any
non-core Perl dependencies (thought the 0.2 maintenance branch still has
them).  The limited variance discussed in this issue has served its purpose
and we have no further need to explore the issue of usage under the Artistic
license 1.0.  
                
> Artistic License / CPAN dependencies
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-86
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-86
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Marvin Humphrey
>
> The Apache Lucy Incubator podling is working to pare down its list of
> dependencies, but there are two CPAN distributions which we would like to 
> put off replacing for the time being (Parse::RecDescent and JSON::XS).
> These two distributions are both licensed, as is common for CPAN modules,
> under the "same terms as Perl itself".  Perl's licensing is here:
>     [http://dev.perl.org/licenses/]
> We do not wish to bundle these CPAN distributions with Lucy, but instead
> specify them as prerequisites.  We assert that our usage of the modules in
> question falls under the terms of the Artistic License and *not* the GPL.
> Lucy interfaces with these modules in three places:
>     * At build time (Parse::RecDescent).
>     * Within Lucy itself at runtime (JSON::XS).
>     * Within sample/cookbook code (Parse::RecDescent).
> We have two questions:
>     * Is it acceptable for code released under the Apache License 2.0 to have
>       a non-optional dependency on code which is licensed under the Artistic
>       License?
>     * Is it acceptable to classify these modules as "system dependencies",
>       which the user is expected to install?

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

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


Mime
View raw message