Re: Ping: (LEGAL-162) May I use a ALv2 compatible licensed 3rd party library which depends upon and directly uses GPL2/GPL3 APIs?

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

The below answer is not authoritative.

Can't you treat the proposed dependency-that-itself-depends-on-a-GPLv2-library 
as a Category X dependency?  IIRC, that means you can include code for it but
that must be disabled by default, and the dependency itself can't be
part of your main distribution artifacts.  (but the /legal/resolved page
has the accurate details)


Ate Douma wrote on Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 13:27:17 +0200:
> Is there anyone capable and authoritative to provide a solid answer to 
> this question [1]?
>
> IMO the answer probably should be NO, but getting an clear and final 
> statement is important.
>
> Note: this is currently blocking a potential contribution for Apache 
> Shindig, but I think this one is critical for ASF projects in general.
>
> Thanks, Ate
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-162
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

Re: Ping: (LEGAL-162) May I use a ALv2 compatible licensed 3rd party library which depends upon and directly uses GPL2/GPL3 APIs?

[Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>]

On 04/03/2013 09:35 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> The below answer is not authoritative.
>
> Can't you treat the proposed dependency-that-itself-depends-on-a-GPLv2-library
> as a Category X dependency?
IMO, the short answer to that is NO, see also LEGAL-82.

> IIRC, that means you can include code for it but
> that must be disabled by default, and the dependency itself can't be
> part of your main distribution artifacts.  (but the /legal/resolved page
> has the accurate details)

There might be an (explicitly) granted exception to this, if the solution is 
optional and viable alternatives exist.

However I doubt the use-case I'm presenting qualifies for this, as the code we 
need to include and commit to the ASF svn still transitively is exposed to 
explicit GPL licensed APIs, and thereby 'becomes' GPL licensed itself.

I'm not 100% sure though and IANAL which is why I created LEGAL-162 to get a 
authoritative answer on this :)

I'm still waiting for someone like Sam or Roy to provide such an answer.

Thanks, Ate

>
>
> Ate Douma wrote on Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 13:27:17 +0200:
>> Is there anyone capable and authoritative to provide a solid answer to
>> this question [1]?
>>
>> IMO the answer probably should be NO, but getting an clear and final
>> statement is important.
>>
>> Note: this is currently blocking a potential contribution for Apache
>> Shindig, but I think this one is critical for ASF projects in general.
>>
>> Thanks, Ate
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-162
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>