Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of MetaModel) we
have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:

 * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
 * dBase databases (.dbf files)
 * MS Access databases

For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so they
have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now they're
individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would like
to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available with a
name like "MetaModel extras".

Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted to ask
if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these modules.
I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and for
now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".

Kind regards,
Kasper

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>]

Nice, thanks Kasper.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> For everyone's information: I've consolidated the extra LGPL modules in a
> GitHub project called MetaModel-extras. It can be found here:
> https://github.com/datacleaner/metamodel_extras
>
> Specifically it covers these modules: DBase, MS Access, SAS
>
> I expect to do a release of that project rather soon, referring our
> 4.0.0-incubating release of Apache MetaModel. If anyone has comments on the
> project it is greatly appreciated!
>
>
> 2013-12-10 Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>:
>
>> Well actually one of the add-ons (the dBase module) does contain LGPL code
>> that was granted with that license by the xBaseJ project, so it's a little
>> bit out of our hands. And it seemed from Matt's response that this would
>> definately not play well in the Apache landscape, which I guess I can
>> understand and live with.
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/9 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>>
>>> Why create a GitHub repos if you can do them at the ASF?
>>>
>>> If the libraries are optional, and they do not include LGPL
>>> components, but only use them at compile/run time, then there appears
>>> to be no reason why we can't just ask Infra for metamodel-extras.git
>>> or whatever! :)
>>>
>>> On 9 December 2013 22:05, Kasper Sørensen
>>> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all.
>>> > Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so,
>>> > called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are
>>> > entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way
>>> dependency.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2013/12/7 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks!
>>> >>
>>> >> This thread is relevant:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results
>>> >>
>>> >> And so is this:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
>>> >>
>>> >> My take is:
>>> >>
>>> >> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
>>> >> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
>>> >> entirely optional.
>>> >>
>>> >> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
>>> >> an exemption.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
>>> >> >> as we communicate this very precisely.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
>>> >> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As
>>> long
>>> >> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
>>> >> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
>>> >> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option
>>> is to
>>> >> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache
>>> community.  I
>>> >> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
>>> >> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
>>> >> > has arisen.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
>>> >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
>>> >> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > Hi all,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of
>>> >> MetaModel)
>>> >> >> we
>>> >> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the
>>> capability of
>>> >> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
>>> >> >> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
>>> >> >> >  * MS Access databases
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed,
>>> so
>>> >> they
>>> >> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now
>>> >> they're
>>> >> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I
>>> would
>>> >> >> like
>>> >> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available
>>> >> with a
>>> >> >> > name like "MetaModel extras".
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I
>>> wanted
>>> >> to
>>> >> >> ask
>>> >> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
>>> >> >> modules.
>>> >> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub,
>>> and
>>> >> for
>>> >> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like
>>> "org.eobjects....".
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Kind regards,
>>> >> >> > Kasper
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Noah Slater
>>> >> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Noah Slater
>>> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>>
>>

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>]

For everyone's information: I've consolidated the extra LGPL modules in a
GitHub project called MetaModel-extras. It can be found here:
https://github.com/datacleaner/metamodel_extras

Specifically it covers these modules: DBase, MS Access, SAS

I expect to do a release of that project rather soon, referring our
4.0.0-incubating release of Apache MetaModel. If anyone has comments on the
project it is greatly appreciated!


2013-12-10 Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>:

> Well actually one of the add-ons (the dBase module) does contain LGPL code
> that was granted with that license by the xBaseJ project, so it's a little
> bit out of our hands. And it seemed from Matt's response that this would
> definately not play well in the Apache landscape, which I guess I can
> understand and live with.
>
>
> 2013/12/9 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>
>> Why create a GitHub repos if you can do them at the ASF?
>>
>> If the libraries are optional, and they do not include LGPL
>> components, but only use them at compile/run time, then there appears
>> to be no reason why we can't just ask Infra for metamodel-extras.git
>> or whatever! :)
>>
>> On 9 December 2013 22:05, Kasper Sørensen
>> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all.
>> > Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so,
>> > called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are
>> > entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way
>> dependency.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2013/12/7 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>> >
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> This thread is relevant:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results
>> >>
>> >> And so is this:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
>> >>
>> >> My take is:
>> >>
>> >> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
>> >> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
>> >> entirely optional.
>> >>
>> >> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
>> >> an exemption.
>> >>
>> >> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
>> >> >> as we communicate this very precisely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
>> >> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As
>> long
>> >> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
>> >> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
>> >> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option
>> is to
>> >> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache
>> community.  I
>> >> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
>> >> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
>> >> > has arisen.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
>> >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
>> >> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of
>> >> MetaModel)
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the
>> capability of
>> >> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
>> >> >> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
>> >> >> >  * MS Access databases
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed,
>> so
>> >> they
>> >> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now
>> >> they're
>> >> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I
>> would
>> >> >> like
>> >> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available
>> >> with a
>> >> >> > name like "MetaModel extras".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I
>> wanted
>> >> to
>> >> >> ask
>> >> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
>> >> >> modules.
>> >> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub,
>> and
>> >> for
>> >> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like
>> "org.eobjects....".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Kind regards,
>> >> >> > Kasper
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Noah Slater
>> >> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Noah Slater
>> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>
>

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>]

Well actually one of the add-ons (the dBase module) does contain LGPL code
that was granted with that license by the xBaseJ project, so it's a little
bit out of our hands. And it seemed from Matt's response that this would
definately not play well in the Apache landscape, which I guess I can
understand and live with.


2013/12/9 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>

> Why create a GitHub repos if you can do them at the ASF?
>
> If the libraries are optional, and they do not include LGPL
> components, but only use them at compile/run time, then there appears
> to be no reason why we can't just ask Infra for metamodel-extras.git
> or whatever! :)
>
> On 9 December 2013 22:05, Kasper Sørensen
> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all.
> > Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so,
> > called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are
> > entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way
> dependency.
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/7 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> >
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> This thread is relevant:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results
> >>
> >> And so is this:
> >>
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
> >>
> >> My take is:
> >>
> >> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
> >> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
> >> entirely optional.
> >>
> >> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
> >> an exemption.
> >>
> >> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
> >> >> as we communicate this very precisely.
> >> >>
> >> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
> >> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
> >> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
> >> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
> >> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option
> is to
> >> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache
> community.  I
> >> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
> >> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
> >> > has arisen.
> >> >
> >> >
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
> >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
> >> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of
> >> MetaModel)
> >> >> we
> >> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the
> capability of
> >> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
> >> >> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
> >> >> >  * MS Access databases
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so
> >> they
> >> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now
> >> they're
> >> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I
> would
> >> >> like
> >> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available
> >> with a
> >> >> > name like "MetaModel extras".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I
> wanted
> >> to
> >> >> ask
> >> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
> >> >> modules.
> >> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub,
> and
> >> for
> >> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like
> "org.eobjects....".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kind regards,
> >> >> > Kasper
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Noah Slater
> >> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Noah Slater
> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

Why create a GitHub repos if you can do them at the ASF?

If the libraries are optional, and they do not include LGPL
components, but only use them at compile/run time, then there appears
to be no reason why we can't just ask Infra for metamodel-extras.git
or whatever! :)

On 9 December 2013 22:05, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all.
> Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so,
> called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are
> entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way dependency.
>
>
> 2013/12/7 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> This thread is relevant:
>>
>>
>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results
>>
>> And so is this:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
>>
>> My take is:
>>
>> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
>> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
>> entirely optional.
>>
>> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
>> an exemption.
>>
>> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
>> >> as we communicate this very precisely.
>> >>
>> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
>> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
>> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
>> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
>> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
>> >>
>> >
>> > AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option is to
>> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache community.  I
>> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
>> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
>> > has arisen.
>> >
>> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
>> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
>> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of
>> MetaModel)
>> >> we
>> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
>> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
>> >> >
>> >> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
>> >> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
>> >> >  * MS Access databases
>> >> >
>> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so
>> they
>> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now
>> they're
>> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would
>> >> like
>> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available
>> with a
>> >> > name like "MetaModel extras".
>> >> >
>> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted
>> to
>> >> ask
>> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
>> >> modules.
>> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and
>> for
>> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".
>> >> >
>> >> > Kind regards,
>> >> > Kasper
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Noah Slater
>> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>]

I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all.
Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so,
called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are
entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way dependency.


2013/12/7 Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>

> Thanks!
>
> This thread is relevant:
>
>
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results
>
> And so is this:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
>
> My take is:
>
> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
> entirely optional.
>
> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
> an exemption.
>
> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
> >> as we communicate this very precisely.
> >>
> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
> >>
> >
> > AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option is to
> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache community.  I
> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
> > has arisen.
> >
> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
> >
> >
> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
> >> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of
> MetaModel)
> >> we
> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
> >> >
> >> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
> >> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
> >> >  * MS Access databases
> >> >
> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so
> they
> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now
> they're
> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would
> >> like
> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available
> with a
> >> > name like "MetaModel extras".
> >> >
> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted
> to
> >> ask
> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
> >> modules.
> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and
> for
> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > Kasper
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Noah Slater
> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

Thanks!

This thread is relevant:

http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results

And so is this:

http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options

My take is:

We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install
those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are
entirely optional.

We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request
an exemption.

On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
>> as we communicate this very precisely.
>>
>> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
>> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
>> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
>> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
>> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
>>
>
> AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option is to
> host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache community.  I
> suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
> general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
> has arisen.
>
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL
>
>
>> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
>> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of MetaModel)
>> we
>> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
>> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
>> >
>> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
>> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
>> >  * MS Access databases
>> >
>> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so they
>> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now they're
>> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would
>> like
>> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available with a
>> > name like "MetaModel extras".
>> >
>> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted to
>> ask
>> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
>> modules.
>> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and for
>> > now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Kasper
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:

> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
> as we communicate this very precisely.
>
> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.
>

AIUI, this is not a valid option.  I believe the recommended option is to
host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache community.  I
suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and
general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue
has arisen.

http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL
http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL


> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of MetaModel)
> we
> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
> >
> >  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
> >  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
> >  * MS Access databases
> >
> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so they
> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now they're
> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would
> like
> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available with a
> > name like "MetaModel extras".
> >
> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted to
> ask
> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these
> modules.
> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and for
> > now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Kasper
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>

Re: Advice us on what to do with LGPL licensed MetaModel extras

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long
as we communicate this very precisely.

We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to
host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long
as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on
this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If
it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work.

On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of MetaModel) we
> have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of
> Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types:
>
>  * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files)
>  * dBase databases (.dbf files)
>  * MS Access databases
>
> For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so they
> have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now they're
> individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would like
> to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available with a
> name like "MetaModel extras".
>
> Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted to ask
> if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these modules.
> I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and for
> now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....".
>
> Kind regards,
> Kasper



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater