LGPL Compatability (again) for Direct vs. Transitive Dependencies

As we discussed before, a direct dependency on a LGPL licensed jar is prohibited, but are transitive dependencies prohibited? For instance, Rya Geoindexing depends on Geomesa (Apache 2.0 licensed) and Geomesa depends on Geotools (LGPL licensed). I believe that we get into trouble in Rya

Re: LGPL Compatability (again) for Direct vs. Transitive Dependencies

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM Josh Elser wrote: > Yes, direct or transitive dependencies have no bearing on the > application of the license or ASF policy. > > Remember, the phrasing of the policy is important: "[you may not bundle >

Re: LGPL Compatability (again) for Direct vs. Transitive Dependencies

Yes, direct or transitive dependencies have no bearing on the application of the license or ASF policy. Remember, the phrasing of the policy is important: "[you may not bundle any products which are category-X]" (probably a bad time to not quote directly, but hopefully my point gets across