On 19/03/2009, at 7:29 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 19-Mar-09, at 1:25 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
Ok. It's was not really clear for me.
There is precedent - we grandfathered in Checkstyle which is LGPL as
it is just a dependency of a plugin, which we don't actually distribute.
The general talk - though not confirmed - is that optional
dependencies that the user must obtain themselves could be ok. There
isn't a legal problem with the combination, but rather a policy one
that you don't distribute something that is essentially useless
without a dependency of a stronger license.
We should ask, but I personally think this is ok, as long as:
- it is not made the default provider
- instructions on the site about how to use it spell out that it
requires the dependency and that it is not under the AL
- we don't bundle and distribute
Technically we are not redistributing anything and we can ask the
board for clarification because in the strictest sense we do not
redistribute. But I think folks here would interpret a dependency in
your POM as being equivalent.
No need to ask the board, you can file a request here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
