Oops, forgot to reply to 'all'. On Jan 24, 2008 6:29 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks everyone for the detailed interpretation. If Henry understood > our policy correctly, does it mean that it's OK if the build of the > submodule that depends on RXTX doesn't occur automatically but with > some interactive precedure with proper notice? > > Thanks, > Trustin > > > On Jan 23, 2008 2:24 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2008 8:29 PM, Ralph Goers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, Cliff's words: > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-optional > > > > > > > > Tell me if you read them differently than I do, or have suggestions on > > > > how the draft should change. > > > > > > > > > > > I read them differently. > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-lgpl > > > says that LGPL works must not be "included" in Apache projects. (quotes > > > are mine around a somewhat ambiguous term). This may simply mean that if > > > the jar does not reside anywhere at Apache this section has been > > > complied with. > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-optional. What is > > > an "add-on"? The way I read the wording is that the add-on is something > > > licensed under the LGPL. This would imply that it is NOT Apache authored > > > code but the jar containing the LGPL'd work. By this interpretation it > > > is perfectly fine to have code at Apache that contains imports of LGPL'd > > > interfaces so long as the LGPL'd code itself doesn't reside at Apache. > > > > > > To me the implication is that a default build of the project should > > > never build this optional piece that requires the LGPL'd work. In order > > > for someone to build it they must be required to find the instructions > > > along with the public notice of the license restrictions. > > > > Almost - the line was that a default build must not _silently_ build > > this optional piece. ie) C based implementations had to make the LGPL > > a --allow-config-param type thing, and Java implementations tended to > > just fall over dead and not build. The user HAD to be the one choosing > > to put the library in place, not us. > > > > Trickier quesiton on a Ant/Ivy/Maven build that uses the Maven > > repository though - getting LGPL through there would not pass the > > 'user is aware' bit. > > > > > Whether this interpretation is what Cliff actually intended is another > > > matter. I just know that one of the reasons the discussion began was the > > > strong desire to be able to support the use of Hibernate in some of the > > > projects. > > > > Yup - and we distributed Hibernate dependent code (but not Hibernate > > itself) with old versions of Roller. > > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ > -- > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 >
-- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
