The import statement alone is sufficient to make the source code a work based on the Library, which means we could distribute under the terms of section 6. Those terms are viral and disallow binary-only releases, making our product viral because the Apache license does not require redistribution of source with executables. In short, the answer is no, and this applies to any software with copyright of The Apache Software Foundation.
Roy, I'm trying hard to understand. I went into section 6 of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html, and suppose you are referring to one of the 5 conditions (a->e) in that clause which we cannot comply with.
No, I am referring to the first paragraph, which states
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification
of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for
debugging such modifications.
which is okay for the ASF, but not okay for all of the people who redistribute ASF software as parts of other projects. That is why this is not an issue of legality -- it is an issue of policy. The ASF policy is to not use LGPL code in any of our projects.
....Roy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
