www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:07:18 GMT
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Then I have a use case. Actually two. The Buildr podling is a Ruby
> project,
> > it's a Java build tool so it needs a Java runtime to compile and run
> tests
> > for example. Using the java and javac commands is too slow. So it's
> using
> > two different options:
> >
> > A module called RJB (Ruby Java Bridge) that relies on JNI and is LGPL
> > licensed.
> > JRuby which lets you pick your license: GPL, LGPL or CPL.
> > The way we've handled this for now is to consider 1) optional (as you
> can
> > rely on 2)) and 2) environmental, just like the ruby runtime is
> considered
> > environmental. Or the JDK itself for that matter. Note that we don't
> even
> > need to ship 1) because Ruby has its own package manager that takes care
> of
> > checking your dependencies and installing them for you.
> >
> > Now the questions would be:
> >
> > Is 1) really kosher? We don't ship anything and still it's optional but
> the
> > other options is CPL at best.
>
> Using our draft-policy, CPL is considered more acceptable than LGPL.
> If Option 2 is a problem, then our use of JUnit is a big problem and
> we've a lot of deleting to do. So I think JRuby usage is fine.
>
> The RJB option - it seems like another Hibernate type option. Could
> you add it to the OpenLegalQuestions page as another LGPL use case?
>

Done.

Thanks!


>
> > Could we ship a release already pre-bundled with JRuby, which contains
> both
> > binaries and scripts as source files?
>
> That would be an open question to add to the OpenLegalQuestions page.
> Good use case. It's blocked by needing to have the discussion on CPL
> source redistribution. Given the various other conversations -
> probably one to hold off right now.
>
> >  We've also had some fun thinking whether monkey patching 2) could be
> > considered as modification of the original source. We've saved some
> brain
> > power by doing without monkey patching ;-)
>
> Yep, that would be a fun use case. I think it'd probably end up much
> like the CDDL binary question the other day - the intent is that our
> monkey patches are under the original license and we'd have to make
> sure we were happy with it for that use case.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message