Trustin Lee wrote:
It's not a mistake. I think we had enough discussion:
http://markmail.org/message/zpjhpxlj3hul3phx#query:+page:1+mid:zpjhpxlj3hul3phx+state:results
This discussion conclusions were pretty clear, I think :
"I think that the last sentence is pretty clear to me : either you write
your own interface, or you accept compilation errors (up to the user to
download the LGPL lib interface), but you should not include any part of
this LGPL project into the repo.
Is that correct ?
Emmanuel"
"I believe so, yes. You absolutely cannot ship any LGPL code along with
your releases. If users provide a version of that code themselves it's
fine to have functionality that depends on it, although in general that
sort of thing should be discouraged if possible.
-garrett"
So I think it's a mistake, IMHO.Someone misinterpreted the conclusion we
reached in this thread.
Please let me know if we need to add some notice statements in our distribution.
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html :
"Category X: Excluded Licenses
The following licenses must *not* apply to any software within an Apache
product, whether in source
<http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html#define-source> or binary
<http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html#define-binary> form""
In any case, I don't see why we have a Notice Statement in the
distribution for a LGPL product. And we should also remove the reference
to this library from the mina-transport-serial pom.xml.
In
contrast, RXTX is available in the official Maven repository and very
stable and mature in what it's supposed to do. What we need to do is
to tell users that it is a LGPL'd library, and that's why
LICENSE.rxtx.txt is there.
There are two different things :
- you can tell users they can use a LGPL library, on there own behalf,
- but you can't distribute the code which does that.
We have had the very same problem at Directory with BDB : the conclusion
is that if we want to distribute a BDB backend, then it has to be done
out of the ASF.
Hope it helps, and that I'm not totally wrong...
PS : in any case, the best to clarify this situation, as the chairman,
would be to push this question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't know if it has been
done last year, but I think it should have ...
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
