Hi Ryan, On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Ryan, >> >> On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I do see it as a roadblock. The goal of SIS was to write >>>> a pure ALv2 licensed (or compatible) spatial library and toolkit, which >>>> in my mind does *not* include any dependencies (even optional) on >>>> LGPL components. >>>> >>> >>> Got it, this was my understanding. The goal of SIS is to build an ASL >>> version of JTS -- that's a great goal, just not one I have any >>> energy/time to contribute towards. >> >> No worries. I appreciate you reaching out. Is there a way to have everything >> in spatial4j that doesn't rely on the LGPL code here? >> > > possible, but it makes testing overly complicated. I want/need the > JTS implementations to be 1st class test citizens. (This is actually > the biggest reason this is not directly in the lucene) Gotcha. > > >>> >>> >>>> Is there any way that the works of spatial4j could be replaced by ALv2 >>>> code? >>> >>> The code in spatial4j is all ASL. If there were a viable ASL polygon >>> library, we could use that too. >> >> How can you have an ALv2 licensed library that has dependencies on LGPL >> upstream >> components? Doesn't the LGPL and its viral nature [1] spill into your code? >> > > You may be confusing LGPL with GPL. > > "Applications which link to LGPL libraries need not be released under the > LGPL" > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html > > The key thing they want to make sure is that you don't bundle your own > version of the .jar file (section 6) Well that's the FSF's interpretation, and *not* Apache's. See this: (search for LGPL) http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products? • Binary Code License (BCL) • Special exceptions to the GNU GPL (e.g. GNU Classpath) • GNU GPL 1, 2, 3 • GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3 • Affero GPL 3 • NPL 1.0/NPL 1.1 • QPL • Sleepycat License • Microsoft Limited Public License GNU LGPL The LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore, LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products. Special exceptions to the GNU GPL Some copyright holders have licensed their works under the GPL with special exceptions. Although these exceptions may appear to be addressing the restrictions disallowed by the ASF's first and second license criteria, the exceptions may only apply to software not "derived from or based on" the covered work. This references terms defined in the GPL that include works that "use" or "contain" the work. This is also the GPL and ALv2 compatible, just for reference: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html You may find other interpretations in mailing lists, or from other folks, or via mail archives, but my preference would be taking the explicit understanding from the Legal resolved page above. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
