That makes it more like the LGPL which I believe would also be ok in this instance
Sent from my iPhone > On May 26, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > What if it's GPL with the classpath exception? > > >> On 26 May 2014 08:16, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On May 26, 2014, at 5:31 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> Over in Commons VFS we are not adding a pom dep to a jar because it's >>>> license is not ASF compatible, which is ASF policy from what I understand >>>> and how it has been explained on the ML. Ii sounds like the same problem >>>> here. >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Ralph Goers >>>> Date:05/25/2014 02:26 (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: Log4J Developers List >>>> Subject: Re: JMH for log4j microbenchmarks >>>> >>>> This is a very good idea. You really don't have a lot to worry about. ASF >>>> projects can use GPL tools to build or do things like you are suggesting. >>>> However, we can't ship things that are under the GPL and should not commit >>>> them to svn. From what you are describing I don't think we would be doing >>>> that. >>> >>> From https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html >>> >>> "We avoid GPLv3 software because merely linking to it is considered by the >>> GPLv3 authors to create a derivative work. We want to honor their license. >>> Unless GPLv3 licensors relax this interpretation of their own license >>> regarding linking, our licensing philosophies are fundamentally >>> incompatible. This is an identical issue for both GPLv2 and GPLv3." >>> >>> So if we link to any GPLv2 or GPLv3 in our sources and we ship these >>> sources, we are creating a derivative work, which we are not allowed to do >>> because, as the ASF, "We want to honor their license". >>> >>> Am I reading this wrong? >>> >>> Thank you, >> >> Yes, >> >> See LEGAL-153 where the GPL is not acceptable and then LEGAL-23 and LEGAL-19 >> where it is. LEGAL-173 is not closed, but it's use of GPL' d software seems >> similar and has an opinion that it is OK. Finally, see >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited. The bottom line is >> whether it is just a tool or if we have actual code that links to it. My >> understanding of it is that there will be no code in svn that references any >> GPL library. >> >> Ralph > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
