On 27.09.2012 13:26, Benson Margulies wrote: > Perhaps I can help here. > > The root of all this, as I understand it, is an optional dependency. > There is, of course, code that depends on the optional dependency. > However, no one has mentioned any *source* code that is under an > incompatible license, such as modified sources of an LGPL component. > > This is the critical question. If this is AL source code that makes > calls to an LGPL component, then it can live in an ordinary AL source > repository and be distributed in an ordinary AL release. However, a > user must be able to build the release, by default, without the LGPL > binary dependency.Thus, 'optional'. > > If, on the other hand, some members of a PMC wish to build source code > that is not under the AL, it cannot be at Apache and there must be a > bright line that avoids any confusion. Such a project could be at > Extras, but then the question arises about whether mailing list > connections and other conveniences would create unacceptable confusion > about the distinction between 'things the PMC does' and 'things some > PMC members happen to do elsewhere.' >
+1
