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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > >
