On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 00:18 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 20/05/07, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 17:11 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > On 20/05/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Oleg, Sebastian, all, > > > > > > > > > I _personally_ find the requirement of conditional compilation of LGPL > > > > > dependent code too restrictive and complicating the release process, > > > > > > > > I agree, in particular if that should mean we can't release binaries > > > > with NTLM support built in. But the conditional compilation is a > > > > _Jakarta_ policy, not an Apache one. Let's see where we are a year > > > > from now. > > > > > > > > sebb wrote: > > > > > Quote: > > > > > > > > > > "Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be included in Apache > > > > > products, although they may be listed as system requirements or > > > > > distributed elsewhere as optional works." > > > > > > > > > > Seems to me that it should not be too difficult to make JCIFS an > > > > > optional work. > > > > > > > > As I understand it, optional work would refer to hosting a separate > > > > project elsewhere and using the LGPL for that. HttpAuth-NTLM or such. > > > > > > AIUI, it's not necessary to create an independent external project to > > > merely to wrap libraries that cannot be included in distributions. > > > > > > For example, JMeter depends optionally on JavaMail - it will work > > > without it, but some functions are disabled. > > > > > > > Sebastian, > > > > The main sticking point is whether we are allowed to ship code that > > imports LGPL licensed classes as a part of the main binary distribution > > or the users will have to download the source distribution, rebuild the > > whole damn thing with --allow-some-lgpl-stuff flag or some such in order > > to enable an optional feature. If latter is the case I _personally_ see > > the whole LGPL policy pointless and would rather favor hosting JCIFS > > dependent code outside ASF. > > As far as I know, it's much the same for LGPL as for JavaMail. > One cannot include the library, but can call it. > > See the link I quoted: > > "Scenarios Involving Prohibited Works > ... > YOU MAY include code within the Apache product necessary to achieve > compatibility with a prohibited work through the use of API calls, > "bridge code", or protocols ..." > > Is that not possible here? >
I simply do not know. This does not help clarify ambiguity of the policy stated here [1] with regards to binary distribution of optional LGPL dependent functions Oleg [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/Using_LGPL'd_code > S > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
