On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and > > similar: > > > > Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if > > the component is only needed for optional features, a project can > > provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the > > non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required > > for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a > > desirable level of quality. > > > > Given the above, why are we still discussing this? > > After further research, here's where I stand: > > * I'm not going to vote on Ignite's release candidates based on this > issue. > * I agree that that passage appears to grant permission for Apache > products > to offer non-core features implemented against GPL-only interfaces. > * I question whether that interpretation was intended. LGPL libraries > yes, GPL libraries no. (FWIW, we haven't even confirmed that Ignite > implements against any GPL-only interfaces.) > Marvin, I think Ignite does not pose a problem here because it does not have any GPL dependencies, optional or not. The only classes in question were the Doug Lee's JSR 166 classes, which I think we already agreed belong to the public domain and have to have proper headers. As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL dependencies which are for the optional integration with the following products: - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/ - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing, http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm Please let me know if you still have concerns. D. > LEGAL-54, the issue where that language was formulated, discusses LGPL > libraries and GPL build tools, but not GPL libraries. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54 > > See also this message from Sam Ruby (Legal VP at the time) which > differentiates between LGPL and GPL libraries: > > http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u > > Another issue discusses "optional" components including GPL libraries > behind a > generic interface: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63 > > > When Subversion was incubating, 5 or so years ago, we went through the > > same discussion regarding our dependency on Neon, even though it was > > optional and Subversion works fine without any DAV plugin at all. > > Subversion graduated while still having this (optional) dependency. > > All the discussion that I was able to find (the most important stuff was on > private lists over a decade ago) talks about Neon as *LGPL*. > > > If you want to question Ignite's optional dependency on GPL code, you > > should start by changing the published policy and making all TLPs throw > > out such dependencies. > > > > Not gonna happen, right? > > I'm not going to go to the wall over this; I'm content to raise the point > so > that an interpretation I think may be faulty does not establish > unchallenged > precedent. The risks are low, I'm not an lawyer, and the case law on > whether > API usage even creates a derivative work is in flux -- see Google vs. > Oracle > and appeals. > > Please carry on. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
