So maybe.. but hear me out for a minute.

I'm assuming by Legal FAQ you're referring to the previously asked questions page

In that page, LGPL is bundled into the same Cat-X as Amazon Software License.  We recently established that it was OK to use Amazon Software License.

Second, in the case i have, the LPGL dependency is not included in the product.  If you were to use maven, ivy, etc to download the convenience binary dependency it would include its transitive dependencies as separate downloads.  Its not packaged as part of the binary product.

In addition, when I think of product in the realm of Apache, I'm thinking of the source code release.  I'm not sure if there's another definition we use.  There would be no LGPL source code in the product.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM Apache <> wrote:
This is answered on the legal FAQ.  The one point you are missing is: will the majority of your users want to use the optional dependency? If they do then it may not really be all that optional.


On Nov 29, 2016, at 12:51 PM, John D. Ament <> wrote:


I raised this legal ticket due to the outcome of a recent discussion around the Amazon Software LIcense, which was deemed OK for optional dependencies specifically designed for use within AWS.

I'd like to know if this can be expanded to handle any Cat-X dependency or if its something special about the ASL's field of use restriction that allows it? for instance, if I have source code fully apache licensed that compiles against a dynamically linked LGPL library, can that source code be distributed, and can I produce binaries that are non-inclusive of those LGPL libraries as long as:

- Its clear to the user they need to pull in the LGPL dependency
- Its an optional module - its adding something specifically around that LGPL library's usage.