Note that Apache projects are allowed to rely on LGPL libraries provided they are optional dependencies
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional So if most users won't want/need RDF/HT (which I strongly suspect is the case) then it would be perfectly fine to have the RDF/HT parser module rely on the Java HDT library provided that Marmotta users have to manually opt-in to enabling RDF/HT support and it isn't included by default Btw the "don't look at it" argument has always seemed dumb to me since when you get down to it there are only so many ways to do things particularly when you are implementing a formal specification like this. This is especially true in the case of binary formats where the low level code is always going to boil down to something along the lines of "try to read next N bytes, interpret those bytes appropriately" so the only real differences will be in the higher level APIs you wrap over it However I would suggest posting a thread on legal-discuss@ to get clarification for people better versed in the legal issues involved Rob On 12/06/2015 08:46, "Sergio Fernández" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >> Is that statement ("don't look at it") about LGPL-licensed source-code >> (which implements a specification) a result of advise from the Apache >> legal team or stated anywhere on the apache.org website ? >> > >No, a personal statement. FMPOV inspiring (looking to) GPL code could be >considered a derived work. Therefore affected by the copyleft clauses of >the license. > >But if you think I could be wrong, we can involve ASF Legal for a proper >checking. > >Thanks for your feedback. > >Cheers, > >-- >Sergio Fernández >Partner Technology Manager >Redlink GmbH >m: +43 6602747925 >e: [email protected] >w: http://redlink.co
