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 05:16:19 GMT
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


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