Re: AppFramework licensing discussion

From: Michael Gentry (blacknex..mail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 14:47:12 EDT

  • Next message: Aristedes Maniatis: "Re: [VOTE] Re: 3.0 M2 Release Vote"

    "The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license (a
    category that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to
    the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third
    license criterion. 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."

    It probably doesn't matter that AppFramework is LGPL 3.0. I'm not
    arguing for or against it, either, especially since I'm not a Swing
    developer and don't know those nuances. If ASF says no to LGPL,
    though, then that is the answer.

    /dev/mrg

    On 10/30/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > > That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
    > > at the moment.
    >
    > What actually matters to us is this:
    >
    > http://apache.org/legal/3party.html
    >
    > We can't distribute LGPL'd dependencies with Apache Cayenne.
    >
    > Andrus
    >
    >
    > On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:37 PM, Michael Gentry 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 anotheróno 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 - 14:47:51 EDT