On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in > legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201602.mbox/%3C2A8B931C-1AD6-4230-B2DE-0B33361B3A2B%40jaguNET.com%3E
The LGPL's reverse engineering provisions make it more difficult to understand the licensing obligations of any ostensibly Apache-2-licensed product with an LGPL-licensed mandatory runtime dependency. Jim speaks for many of us in that thread. However, one of the reasons we have the "incubating" label is to let people know that "incubating" releases may not be fully compliant with all Apache policies. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-86 for an example of where incubating releases were allowed with a runtime dependency on a non-approved license. Just as Greg laid out, a plan was proposed for removing the dependency before graduation and the VP Legal at the time, Sam Ruby, gave his OK. With LEGAL-86, VP Legal's approval was sought in advance, and in general podlings should should be aware of resources like the legal-discuss@apache list and should learn when and how to utilize them. However, unless Greg advises Mynewt to consult VP Legal (and I'm all but certain he won't), that won't be necessary in this case. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
