On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 07:58:28PM +0000, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >Steven Noels wrote: > >>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >> > >>>I'm not going to put another jar in our dependencies that is LGPL also. > >> > >>You are not _allowed_ to do so. > > > >Actually, we can. It depends on whom you ask ;-) > > Both wrong? :-) :-) > > Ok, let me try to explain the rationale behind GPL/LGPL for inclusion in > the ASF codebases. > > I believe that everyone will know why GPL is "no-no" for us: it's a > "viral" license, every modification to some GPL code, and everything > linked against some GPL code _needs_ to be re-released as GPL. > > Now, the folks at GNU one day, seeing the drawbacks imposed by this > licensing scheme (not many wanted to release software using a GPL > licensed library) decided to come out with a "Lesser" GPL (LGPL). > > LPGL has one small caveat in it: you can LINK against that library and > not be forced to re-release your code as GPL (however, if you modify the > library itself, your modifications will have to be licensed under LGPL > again, it is still "viral" on that part). > > Legally there is nothing preventing us (Apache) to base some of our work > on a LGPL licensed library, then, for real, you can link against, put it > in CVS, do whatever you want.
Well that's interesting. > But there is one tricky little detail: > > If (for example) we, the ASF, decided to get the library and make some > modifications to it, or, scarier though, we _had_ to "fork" the library > for our own needs (imagine, the orignal author changes from LGPL to > something else, full GPL for example -as happened lately to the MySQL > JDBC drivers- or even worse, decides the library will only be > distributed as "commercial software"), then we would be utterly f***ed. > > Ethically the ASF does not develops software under a "viral" license, > therefore, given the "partial virality" of LGPL, we wouldn't be able to > "fork" and maintain such a library. Not at Apache, but is there anything stopping a few developers forking the last LGPL'ed version on Sourceforge? If so, then using LGPL code could be an acceptable risk. The alternatives (rewrite, or convince the world to adopt BSD/ASL) aren't fun at all.. --Jeff > We wouldn't even be able to change the license, all modifications would > have to be LGPL, so, we either would have to rewrite the whole thing, > or get rid of the offending bits and bobs... > > Soooo, I'd say, if you see the word GPL somewhere (with or without the > leading L) my answer is usually no, because now or in the future it > could/will create problems... > > My 2c... > > Pier --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
