Sorry about that, gave the wrong information.

The GPL 1, 2, and 3 all fall under category X licenses [1].
"Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed components, be it
in source or binary form; and be it in ASF source code or convenience
binaries. As with the previous question on platforms, the component can be
relied on if the component's license terms do not affect the Apache
product's licensing. For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is
OK, however including GPL'ed source code is not."

But if this is an optional component which does not significantly prevent
the majority of users to use the product then it will be ok[2]. Relevant
bit is:
"Apache projects can rely on components under prohibited licenses if the
component is only needed for optional features. When doing so, a project
shall provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required for
standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a desirable level
of quality. The question to ask yourself in this situation is:"

So in this case I believe we can include the LZO as long as we mark it as
optional.

1: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
2: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional



On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:51 PM Luke Cwik <[email protected]> wrote:

> Which GPL version?
>
> The Apache License 2.0 is compatible with GPL 3[1]
>
> 1: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:10 PM Sameer Abhyankar <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We were looking to add an IO that would read LZO compressed binaries from
>> a supported filesystem. However, based on our research, LZO is shipped
>> under the GPL license.
>>
>> Would the licensing issue make it unlikely for this to be accepted as a
>> contribution into the Beam SDK? Are there options for adding support for
>> LZO into the Beam SDK so we dont run into licensing issues?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the help with this!!
>>
>> Sameer
>>
>

Reply via email to