On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, sebb wrote: >>>> >>>> Can the above be read as follows for VFS and JCIFS: you cannot copy the >>>> JCIFS jar into VFS (which we do not) but the VFS POM can point to it (which >>>> we do). >>> >>> The above document is only proposed, not actual policy. >>> >>> The following is the resolved list of questions: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>> >>> In particular: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional >>> >>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding the >>> optional components? >> >> I do not see how this helps. It's yes or no: Can the VFS POM point to >> a set of artifacts that are LGPL? > > Whether the answer is yes or no depends on the answer to the above question.
There are only a few file systems in VFS that should be considered required. All the ones that require the user to include a third-party jar - even if it is Jackrabbit's - are optional. We could easily include file systems that have dependencies on artifacts that are licensed under the LGPL or similar licenses (although I would still shy away from GPL'd works because of the FSF's interpretation of their license). The biggest issue I see with the stuff in the sandbox isn't licensing but if anyone will support it. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
