Yes if you are using a feature specific to a specific product it is obvious even if you wrap cruft around it. however when I see something that uses "rabbit mq" i generally think to wrap an interface around it so I can replace with Apache Kafka :).I am wondering if the same be done here.
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 5/20/16, 8:57 AM, "Edward Capriolo" <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >" You could argue that it makes the dependency optional" > >Yes that is what I am saying. Like in a JDBC application you may be > >connecting to postgres or mysql you are not concerned how those are > >licensed because you are linked to the shim/driver. You could even bring > >in > >the Microsoft SQL server as a jar in this case. > > Right. Then, AIUI, the test is about "will" not "could". What "will" > the majority of your customer do? If reality is that they will bring down > the LGPL implementation you have not truly passed the "optional" test. > The uber goal is to get away from having customers of Apache products > worry about LGPL and other unfriendly licenses ending up on their system. > > -Alex > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
