On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
This is one of the requirements of incubation, so it will be taken
care of there -
can you clarify this.
are you saying that these licensing constraints do not apply in the
incubator - that we just dump all our code in there, no matter
what, provided that licensing issues are resolved before promotion
out of it ?
Well, the licensing constraints to apply, but the incubator is a
place to sort them out. It simply means that you won't be able to
release anything, nor have those deps in "nightly builds" or that
sort of thing.
Roller in incubator is an example of this (although a very special
case I think).
I think the most wise thing is to jettison everything you can before,
and then be clear about what is there on introduction to the incubator.
but it's good for those communities to be aware of it
when making their decision.
The GPL doc you refer to is actually about the combining of ASL and
GPL works being possible at all, regardless of the requirements here.
The following are some guidelines, though it'd be best to consider
individual cases on legal-discuss@ which will have to happen during
incubation.
As for what you can depend on/include as an ASF project, GPL is not
possible because it affects the license of the whole.
please clarify 'depend on/include' - by this do you mean
'physically package together with your binary distribution' or
'import at compile time, into classes that are shipped in the
binary distribution'.
if you import GPL at compile time, the virality of the GPL requires
that you license under the GPL, so clearly that's not allowed.
GPL isn't alllowed at all.
LGPL may be
possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
application.
so it is OK to 'import' LGPL code at compile time, as long as you
don't ship it ?
Currently, this is something that is being decided, and it wouldn't
be prudent to predict the outcome.
One proposal was to allow imports of LGPL as long as the LGPL-ed code
base was not required for the software to run, but rather would
support an optional feature. That still would preclude the incusion
of the LGPL-ed jar in any distribution from the ASF.
Again, this isn't done, and it's a very confusing issue because of
uncertainties people have with the meaning of the LGPL.
There is ongoing discussion around this.
so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
The key point is that the ASF retain its ability to distribute
software that doesn't have conditions beyond those in the ASL (yes,
there are some exceptions out there).
thanks for helping with this.
Jules
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/9/05, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even beyond the requirements of incubation, there exists a whole
host
of issues surrounding the use of code with a license other than
AL. I
know that ServiceMix and WADI integrate such code. So how is
this to
be sorted out? For example, I know that the ASF has a long-standing
policy on the use of GPL compatibility:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
In addition to the whole GPL can of worms, how about the TranQL
requirement for Oracle and DB2 JDBC drivers?
--
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."
/**********************************
* Jules Gosnell
* Partner
* Core Developers Network (Europe)
*
* www.coredevelopers.net
*
* Open Source Training & Support.
**********************************/
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
