Hi,
Just FYI:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Interesting to note that has been discuss at the board level but no
> resolution was passed. This was back in 2005 so I’m not aware of the history
> or why the resolution wasn’t passed [1] a search of the mailing lists from
> that time may provide an answer.
I've attached the board meeting minutes as below:
28 Jul 2005: Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries (tabled) [1]
E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
See Special Orders for two proposed resolutions.
The first resolution allows PMCs to develop and distribute
software that depends on the presence of LGPL-licensed
libraries, *without* distributing the libraries themselves.
After numerous discussions with the FSF, other LGPL licensors,
and ASF counsel, Larry Rosen, it appears that such a policy
should not impact the product licensing. In order to allow
PMCs to apply this policy to all useful LGPL-licensed
libraries, the resolution does not require the PMCs to get
an agreement from each copyright owner, but instead requires
the PMC to register the use of the particular LGPL library
with the VP of Legal Affairs. See my post to the board@
list for more details ("My recommendation for an ASF policy on
the LGPL").
The second resolution allows PMCs to redistribute MPL/NPL-
licensed executables. The key difference between the MPL/NPL
and the LGPL regarding redistribution requirements is that the
MPL/NPL allows redistribution under any license (provided that
the distributor complies with the applicable terms of the
MPL/NPL); the LGPL requires redistribution of either the source
or executable of the library to be licensed only under the LGPL.
While the MPL 1.0, MPL 1.1, NPL 1.0, and NPL 1.1 are nearly
identical in their treatment of redistribution of executables,
it is important to note that the NPL licenses are not OSI-
approved, as they discriminate in favor of Netscape, weakening
the terms that Netscape has to comply with relative to other
users. See my post to the board@ list for more details ("MPL/NPL
Issue: My recommendation for an ASF policy on the MPL/NPL").
NOTE: Larry Rosen has agreed with my analysis of the MPL/NPL
licenses as described in the referenced post; however, yesterday
he suggested that I confirm that Mitchell Baker also agrees
(author of the licenses). I have not yet received her response.
This could be a reason to table this resolution.
17 Aug 2005: Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries (tabled) [2]
E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
I've inserted slightly edited versions of the same MPL/NPL
and LGPL resolutions, which were tabled last month.
Since last month's meeting, I have:
- confirmed with a second member of ASF's legal counsel
that the proposed LGPL policy does not put our product
licensing at risk;
- posted and discussed the proposed LGPL policy on the
legal-discuss list, where no new concerns were raised
about the licensing ramifications; however there was
concern raised by both outside lawyers and Apache
committers that dependencies on LGPL libraries was not
in the best interests of some Apache users;
- engaged with representatives of the Mozilla Foundation
to discuss the proposed MPL/NPL licensing policy. While
they have *not* yet formally indicated their agreement
with our interpretation, they have not yet raised any
new concerns.
Future action items include resolving the BXA/crypto issue
and investigating and proposing policies for the CPL, EPL,
and CDDL licenses.
Finally, one of my short-term objectives is to overhaul the
legal STATUS file to reflect the current priorities and
status.
16 Nov 2005: LGPL resolution (tabled) [3]
LGPL: I'm still waiting on feedback from Eben on my
Java/LGPL position paper that I sent him last month. He
wanted to refrain from giving me feedback until
discussing the matter with the FSF. I expect to have
something any day now, since that meeting should have
recently happened. I recommend we hold off any decision
to allow distribution of LGPL components within non-
incubating product JARs until getting this one last
opinion from Eben and then bouncing it off the rest of
our counsel. However, I do not think we should have any
legal concern about separately distributing the LGPL and
ASF component that depends on it; both Jason and Larry
have signed off on this question.
The latest update was waiting from Eben's feedback.
The discussion happened on the legal-discuss[4][5].
>From my understanding, I don't see any issues that stop us from
allowing product depend on LGPL licensed software...
[1]
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_07_28.txt
[2]
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_08_17.txt
[3]
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_11_16.txt
[4]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1991b7c73caaeda401cade3b9b94e070c2469fa40460552edb465c96@1123019323@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
[5]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbff7df04de5187a35799cf148d77deeb5349ca1d8381a9c002ac400@1123024332@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1,https://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar-2005-2009.html
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar-2005-2009.html>
--
Best Regards！
Huxing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
