LGPL

[Sergi Vladykin <se...@gmail.com>]

Mentors,

We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with their
library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
distribution with this library included while on the source code level it
is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here? I
currently see none.

Sergi

Re: LGPL

[Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>]

On 28.01.2015 08:31, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> Guys,
>
> If we only link with compiled LGPL library why is it considered unfriendly?
> As far as I know LGPL allows even commercial application to ship such
> libraries with them, am I wrong? Why we need all this hustle with
> downloading scripts?

It's one thing to "ship" and quite another to "redistribute." The
redistribution rights granted by LGPL are quite a bit more constrained
than those granted by ALv2. We cannot ship sources with LGPL components
and say they can be redistributed under ALv2; that simply does not work.
It's similar with binaries.

A commercial license typically does not allow redistribution at all, so
that part of LGPL never gets involved in that case.

-- Brane

> 2015-01-28 6:22 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
>
>> As Brane mentioned one of the way is to provide a simple helper script that
>> can be run as a part of the installation and bring the needed binaries
>> down.
>> This of course should go with a warning to the user that some non-ASL
>> friendly
>> libraries will be downloaded. Having such a script as a part of the source
>> release is totally acceptable as well ;)
>>
>> That seems to be the most appropriate way to go without doing a lot of the
>> code changes.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:11PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>> Sergi,
>>>
>>> I also think this is OK form Apache stand point.
>>>
>>> However, I still don't like bundling TPS, licensed under LGPL, together
>>> with H2, licensed under EPL, as one dependency. This would imply that our
>>> users who choose to use only H2 indexing under EPL license, now have to
>>> also agree to LGPL license because of TPS. It does not make sense. We
>>> should move TPS into a separate dependency module which will be licensed
>>> under LGPL.
>>>
>>> I filed a ticket for this:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-140
>>> . We can continue this discussion there.
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
>>>>> Mentors,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with
>> their
>>>>> library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
>>>>> distribution with this library included while on the source code
>> level it
>>>>> is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here?
>> I
>>>>> currently see none.
>>>> I think we already had this discussion. :)
>>>>
>>>> Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies
>>>> are not.
>>>>
>>>> "Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the
>>>> user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using
>>>> Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version
>> of
>>>> Ignite that uses that code.
>>>>
>>>> As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say
>>>> they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution
>>>> /may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible,
>>>> I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the
>>>> user add it and detect its presence at runtime.
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>

Re: LGPL

[Sergi Vladykin <se...@gmail.com>]

Guys,

If we only link with compiled LGPL library why is it considered unfriendly?
As far as I know LGPL allows even commercial application to ship such
libraries with them, am I wrong? Why we need all this hustle with
downloading scripts?

Sergi

2015-01-28 6:22 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:

> As Brane mentioned one of the way is to provide a simple helper script that
> can be run as a part of the installation and bring the needed binaries
> down.
> This of course should go with a warning to the user that some non-ASL
> friendly
> libraries will be downloaded. Having such a script as a part of the source
> release is totally acceptable as well ;)
>
> That seems to be the most appropriate way to go without doing a lot of the
> code changes.
>
> Cos
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:11PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > Sergi,
> >
> > I also think this is OK form Apache stand point.
> >
> > However, I still don't like bundling TPS, licensed under LGPL, together
> > with H2, licensed under EPL, as one dependency. This would imply that our
> > users who choose to use only H2 indexing under EPL license, now have to
> > also agree to LGPL license because of TPS. It does not make sense. We
> > should move TPS into a separate dependency module which will be licensed
> > under LGPL.
> >
> > I filed a ticket for this:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-140
> > . We can continue this discussion there.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> > > > Mentors,
> > > >
> > > > We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with
> their
> > > > library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
> > > > distribution with this library included while on the source code
> level it
> > > > is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here?
> I
> > > > currently see none.
> > >
> > > I think we already had this discussion. :)
> > >
> > > Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies
> > > are not.
> > >
> > > "Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the
> > > user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using
> > > Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version
> of
> > > Ignite that uses that code.
> > >
> > > As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say
> > > they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution
> > > /may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible,
> > > I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the
> > > user add it and detect its presence at runtime.
> > >
> > > -- Brane
> > >
>

Re: LGPL

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

As Brane mentioned one of the way is to provide a simple helper script that
can be run as a part of the installation and bring the needed binaries down.
This of course should go with a warning to the user that some non-ASL friendly
libraries will be downloaded. Having such a script as a part of the source
release is totally acceptable as well ;)

That seems to be the most appropriate way to go without doing a lot of the
code changes.

Cos

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:11PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Sergi,
> 
> I also think this is OK form Apache stand point.
> 
> However, I still don't like bundling TPS, licensed under LGPL, together
> with H2, licensed under EPL, as one dependency. This would imply that our
> users who choose to use only H2 indexing under EPL license, now have to
> also agree to LGPL license because of TPS. It does not make sense. We
> should move TPS into a separate dependency module which will be licensed
> under LGPL.
> 
> I filed a ticket for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-140
> . We can continue this discussion there.
> 
> D.
> 
> D.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> > > Mentors,
> > >
> > > We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with their
> > > library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
> > > distribution with this library included while on the source code level it
> > > is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here? I
> > > currently see none.
> >
> > I think we already had this discussion. :)
> >
> > Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies
> > are not.
> >
> > "Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the
> > user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using
> > Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version of
> > Ignite that uses that code.
> >
> > As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say
> > they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution
> > /may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible,
> > I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the
> > user add it and detect its presence at runtime.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >

Re: LGPL

[Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>]

Sergi,

I also think this is OK form Apache stand point.

However, I still don't like bundling TPS, licensed under LGPL, together
with H2, licensed under EPL, as one dependency. This would imply that our
users who choose to use only H2 indexing under EPL license, now have to
also agree to LGPL license because of TPS. It does not make sense. We
should move TPS into a separate dependency module which will be licensed
under LGPL.

I filed a ticket for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-140
. We can continue this discussion there.

D.

D.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> > Mentors,
> >
> > We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with their
> > library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
> > distribution with this library included while on the source code level it
> > is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here? I
> > currently see none.
>
> I think we already had this discussion. :)
>
> Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies
> are not.
>
> "Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the
> user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using
> Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version of
> Ignite that uses that code.
>
> As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say
> they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution
> /may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible,
> I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the
> user add it and detect its presence at runtime.
>
> -- Brane
>

Re: LGPL

[Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>]

On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> Mentors,
>
> We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with their
> library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
> distribution with this library included while on the source code level it
> is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here? I
> currently see none.

I think we already had this discussion. :)

Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies
are not.

"Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the
user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using
Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version of
Ignite that uses that code.

As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say
they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution
/may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible,
I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the
user add it and detect its presence at runtime.

-- Brane