Real ASF lawyers have looked at the issue, and their decisions
(binding to all ASF projects) are available here.
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
[ I think this page might be more up-to-date at a different location,
but I don't have it off-hand, and it hasn't changed in any non-trivial
way as far as I know. ]
On 10/30/07, Michael Gentry <blacknex..mail.com> wrote:
> OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-)
>
> LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in
> commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To
> quote from the GNU itself:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> library makes it available only for free programs."
>
> This is why the GNU C library is LGPL:
>
> "This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
> there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
> have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
> for them, only for us."
>
> A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and
> linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary.
>
> That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and
> used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the
> application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how
> utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF
> licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary
> software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the
> application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is
> the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
>
> From the GPL FAQ:
>
> If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
>
> (note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there)
>
> and:
>
> How does the LGPL work with Java?
> See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for
> details. It works as designed, intended, and expected.
>
>
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> > Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
> > (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
> > AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
> > willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
> > here is a link:
> >
> > https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=1210
> >
> > While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
> > besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
> > it myself :-)
> >
> > Andrus
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 13:47:31 EDT