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 06:49:09 GMT
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.


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