www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Upcoming CloudStack release
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:20:43 GMT
No, I think you are misunderstanding the distinction and you aren't really agreeing with me.
Saying that a user being expected to have installed the base is equivalent to a user hosting
a library is simply incorrect.

In one case a work is designed to enhance a specific platform.  For example, one would expect
that log4net or lucene.net would be required to run on a .net platform.   OTOH, one would
not expect that projects like Lucene or Tomcat would have a requirement on a library that
is not compatible with the Apache license.  Simply saying the user has to install the work
with the incompatible license doesn't change the fact that the work itself is essentially
useless to organizations that don't find the LGPL acceptable for products they might ship.

To illustrate this better, consider a vendor who wants to sell a product. They won't necessarily
have a problem shipping a product that runs only on Windows but by itself consists entirely
of Apache licensed, or compatible, works.  OTOH, they will have a problem if they are forced
to either a) ship the product and tell the customer they have to download and add the LPGL'd
work or b) they have to host the LGPL'd work somewhere and give the customer access to it
AND they have to allow their customer to decompile their product to be able to debug the LGPL'd

As you hopefully can see these two cases are very different, which is why the ASF generally
doesn't allow dependencies on LGPL'd works even if the project doesn't ship them.  


On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:49 PM, Aahit wrote:

> I agree with you Ralph. Even i was explaining how one can use LGPL'd library. Instead
of saying that the user is expected to have installed that as the base for the Apache Licensed
work, one can host this library. I think this would solve this issue.
> Aahit
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I have to disagree with this assessment.  From a licensing perspective you are correct
but not from an ASF policy perspective.
> If the project uses a category X licensed work as its "foundation" (i.e. a product designed
as an enhancement to Linux, or Windows, JBoss, etc.) and the user is expected to have installed
that as the base for the Apache licensed work then this would be acceptable. However, simply
introducing a dependency on an LGPL'd work because it provides functionality you would like
to use does NOT comply with ASF policy, even if you do not distribute it.  The only case where
such a component is acceptable is if it is fully optional (and the majority of the users will
be happy to not use the optional portion).
> Ralph
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Aahit wrote:
>> We can use, but can not include, libraries licensed with LGPL. The licensing quirk
here is that we can write code that uses the libraries but can't include (distribute) the
libraries themselves. This means that we have to have the build.xml files out of the box with
exclusions for these source files. For each one we should document which jar files are needed,
where they can be obtained, and which build.xml file(s) need to be changed to compile the
Java files that depend on them.
>> It means one can dynamically link to LGPL libraries instead of statically link.
>> Aahit
>> ----------
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe that Aahit is correct with respect to foundation policy.
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html seems clear enough. LGPL is
>> category X. That means, I believe:
>>  - no mandatory dependency
>>  - no redistribution
>> The section labelled 'Options for Prohibited Works' seems also quite clear.
>> What am I missing?
>> --benson
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message