On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:09, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:59:12 +0200, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> >... >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that nowhere in the >> code repository we can have code that links against LGPL code. And of >> course extensions are part of our code base also.
The repository can contain code that is licensed with a permissive license (ALv2, MIT, BSD). Of course, we try to have only "our" code, but over in httpd is a copy of PCRE, and APR has a copy of Expat. Stuff that is not "our" code must be listed in the NOTICE file. We cannot have any code in the repository that has a reciprocal license. > We can link LGPL'd code (Qt and GTK are examples) we just can't > carry it. We can only link to LGPL'd code *if* directed by a build flag. It cannot be a required dependency. In short: the product must be capable WITHOUT that LGPL'd library. That said, I believe that Qt and GTK fall into the "base operating system library" exclusion to that rule. >... >> Some filters do it this way, some don't. So some may become >> extensions, some can't. Usually it is quite some work to do to get >> filter code into a state that allows to use the filter as an >> extension. Must be checked for each filter individually. >> > > If we can't move it to extension we may be able to make the build > conditional anyways. Something like: > ./configure --with-binfilter Right. > but LGPL dependencies have to be moved out of the tree. They can stay in the tree, as long as they are optional (as you point out: build flag, or a runtime config or load, or something). >... Cheers, -g
