Well actually one of the add-ons (the dBase module) does contain LGPL code that was granted with that license by the xBaseJ project, so it's a little bit out of our hands. And it seemed from Matt's response that this would definately not play well in the Apache landscape, which I guess I can understand and live with.
2013/12/9 Noah Slater <[email protected]> > Why create a GitHub repos if you can do them at the ASF? > > If the libraries are optional, and they do not include LGPL > components, but only use them at compile/run time, then there appears > to be no reason why we can't just ask Infra for metamodel-extras.git > or whatever! :) > > On 9 December 2013 22:05, Kasper Sørensen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all. > > Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so, > > called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are > > entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way > dependency. > > > > > > 2013/12/7 Noah Slater <[email protected]> > > > >> Thanks! > >> > >> This thread is relevant: > >> > >> > >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results > >> > >> And so is this: > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options > >> > >> My take is: > >> > >> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install > >> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are > >> entirely optional. > >> > >> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request > >> an exemption. > >> > >> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long > >> >> as we communicate this very precisely. > >> >> > >> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to > >> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long > >> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on > >> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If > >> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work. > >> >> > >> > > >> > AIUI, this is not a valid option. I believe the recommended option > is to > >> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache > community. I > >> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and > >> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue > >> > has arisen. > >> > > >> > > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL > >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL > >> > > >> > > >> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Hi all, > >> >> > > >> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of > >> MetaModel) > >> >> we > >> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the > capability of > >> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types: > >> >> > > >> >> > * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files) > >> >> > * dBase databases (.dbf files) > >> >> > * MS Access databases > >> >> > > >> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so > >> they > >> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now > >> they're > >> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I > would > >> >> like > >> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available > >> with a > >> >> > name like "MetaModel extras". > >> >> > > >> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I > wanted > >> to > >> >> ask > >> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these > >> >> modules. > >> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, > and > >> for > >> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like > "org.eobjects....". > >> >> > > >> >> > Kind regards, > >> >> > Kasper > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Noah Slater > >> >> https://twitter.com/nslater > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Noah Slater > >> https://twitter.com/nslater > >> > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater >
