www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aahit <aah...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Upcoming CloudStack release
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:46:46 GMT
ohk, I got it. Good explanation Ralph. According to you what option would
be suitable for Ewan requirements.


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:

> 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 work.
> 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.
> Ralph
> 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