On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> > wrote: > > > > > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes > > hold upon linking (at build time), not upon referencing the API via an > > import, include, etc. in the source. > > > > Your understanding is, simply put, not aligned with the FSF, and the ASF > has decided to follow FSF's conclusion. In fact, a former Director at ASF > and lawyer, Larry Rosen, was trying to fight this stance, basically making > the claim that GPL is overreaching, and that ended with Larry being kicked > out (not only for this particular question). > > > <quote src="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html"; emphasis="mine"> > It has always been the FSF's position that *dynamically linking > applications to libraries creates a single work derived* from both the > library code and the application code.The GPL requires that all derivative > works be licensed as a whole under the terms of the GPL, an effect which > can be described as “hereditary.” So, if an application links to a library > licensed under the GPL, the application too must be licensed under the GPL. > : > : > FSF's position has remained constant throughout: the LGPL works as intended > with all known programming languages, including Java. Applications which > link to LGPL libraries need not be released under the LGPL. Applications > need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the LGPL: allow new > versions of the library to be linked with the application; and allow > reverse engineering to debug this. > </quote> > > At first, the "link to LGPL libraries need not be released under LGPL" is > an indicator that Apache licensed projects could depend on LGPL projects, > but it is this "Section 6" that makes LGPL incompatible, since we don't > require this of our downstreams. This was hotly debated back in the days > when this FSF article was written, and it took us a year or two to nail it > down. > > > More info at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html > > John, As for the case of Hibernate; If you depend on JPA, you don't depend > on Hibernate. However, if you depend on JPA in a way so that only Hibernate > makes the project work, and that EclipseLink or other implementations can't > be used instead, then you are in gray territory and should ask Legal for > advice. I am uncertain of that position. > > The info I provided was based on a discussion on legal, originally carried over from a discussion on optional dependencies on software licensed under the Amazon Software License - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2630f3d9540f02ef24f5e03cc171c4a2975bd8965c80a1965a55c0b4@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >
