You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> on 2007/10/29 07:53:42 UTC
AppFramework licensing discussion
Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
(that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
here is a link:
https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=1210
While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
it myself :-)
Andrus
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Real ASF lawyers have looked at the issue, and their decisions
(binding to all ASF projects) are available here.
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
[ I think this page might be more up-to-date at a different location,
but I don't have it off-hand, and it hasn't changed in any non-trivial
way as far as I know. ]
On 10/30/07, Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-)
>
> LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in
> commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To
> quote from the GNU itself:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> library makes it available only for free programs."
>
> This is why the GNU C library is LGPL:
>
> "This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
> there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
> have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
> for them, only for us."
>
> A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and
> linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary.
>
> That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and
> used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the
> application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how
> utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF
> licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary
> software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the
> application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is
> the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
>
> From the GPL FAQ:
>
> If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
>
> (note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there)
>
> and:
>
> How does the LGPL work with Java?
> See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for
> details. It works as designed, intended, and expected.
>
>
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> > Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
> > (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
> > AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
> > willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
> > here is a link:
> >
> > https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=1210
> >
> > While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
> > besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
> > it myself :-)
> >
> > Andrus
> >
>
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Oct 31, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> If people feel strongly enough about it, another option would be to
> pull
> CM out altogether and host it as a non-ASF project.
I am certainly -1 on that. There is a great benefit to CayenneModeler
being a part of Cayenne.
Andrus
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com>.
I'm not much in favor of CM being pulled out. I'm in favor of good
tools to develop it, though. (Yes, we could argue the definition of
"good" ...) I'm still kind of a NeXTstep hack and liked using
Interface Builder (on NeXT or OS X). NB isn't there, yet, in terms of
being as nice as IB, but the last time I played with it, making a
basic GUI wasn't too bad. I suppose I could learn Swing/etc from the
source-code level, though.
/dev/mrg
On 10/31/07, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> If people feel strongly enough about it, another option would be to pull
> CM out altogether and host it as a non-ASF project. I'm personally not
> a fan of it, but if doing so would significantly improve the quality of
> the modeler, I'd warm up to it. I've just not been adequately convinced
> that that'll be the case.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gentry [mailto:blacknext@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
>
> I suppose in a round-about way this answers another thing I had
> thought about before. I was wondering if re-doing the modeler in
> NetBeans (using Matisse -- or whatever they are calling it these days)
> would be good, but NB uses Swing Layout Extensions which it'll bundle
> in your jar for you, but the license would be bad for ASF:
>
> https://swing-layout.dev.java.net/
>
> It uses LGPL.
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
RE: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
If people feel strongly enough about it, another option would be to pull
CM out altogether and host it as a non-ASF project. I'm personally not
a fan of it, but if doing so would significantly improve the quality of
the modeler, I'd warm up to it. I've just not been adequately convinced
that that'll be the case.
--
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gentry [mailto:blacknext@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:29 PM
To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
I suppose in a round-about way this answers another thing I had
thought about before. I was wondering if re-doing the modeler in
NetBeans (using Matisse -- or whatever they are calling it these days)
would be good, but NB uses Swing Layout Extensions which it'll bundle
in your jar for you, but the license would be bad for ASF:
https://swing-layout.dev.java.net/
It uses LGPL.
/dev/mrg
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com>.
I suppose in a round-about way this answers another thing I had
thought about before. I was wondering if re-doing the modeler in
NetBeans (using Matisse -- or whatever they are calling it these days)
would be good, but NB uses Swing Layout Extensions which it'll bundle
in your jar for you, but the license would be bad for ASF:
https://swing-layout.dev.java.net/
It uses LGPL.
/dev/mrg
On 10/30/07, Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license (a
> category that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to
> the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third
> license criterion. Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be
> included in Apache products, although they may be listed as system
> requirements or distributed elsewhere as optional works."
>
> It probably doesn't matter that AppFramework is LGPL 3.0. I'm not
> arguing for or against it, either, especially since I'm not a Swing
> developer and don't know those nuances. If ASF says no to LGPL,
> though, then that is the answer.
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> > > That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> > > at the moment.
> >
> > What actually matters to us is this:
> >
> > http://apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >
> > We can't distribute LGPL'd dependencies with Apache Cayenne.
> >
> > Andrus
> >
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:37 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-)
> > >
> > > LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in
> > > commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To
> > > quote from the GNU itself:
> > >
> > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> > >
> > > "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> > > is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> > > of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> > > the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> > > library makes it available only for free programs."
> > >
> > > This is why the GNU C library is LGPL:
> > >
> > > "This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
> > > there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
> > > have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
> > > for them, only for us."
> > >
> > > A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and
> > > linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary.
> > >
> > > That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> > > at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and
> > > used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the
> > > application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how
> > > utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF
> > > licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary
> > > software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the
> > > application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is
> > > the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
> > >
> > > From the GPL FAQ:
> > >
> > > If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> > > that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> > > Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
> > > library.
> > >
> > > (note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there)
> > >
> > > and:
> > >
> > > How does the LGPL work with Java?
> > > See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for
> > > details. It works as designed, intended, and expected.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /dev/mrg
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> > >> Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
> > >> (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
> > >> AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
> > >> willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
> > >> here is a link:
> > >>
> > >> https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?
> > >> list=users&msgNo=1210
> > >>
> > >> While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
> > >> besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
> > >> it myself :-)
> > >>
> > >> Andrus
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com>.
"The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license (a
category that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to
the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third
license criterion. Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be
included in Apache products, although they may be listed as system
requirements or distributed elsewhere as optional works."
It probably doesn't matter that AppFramework is LGPL 3.0. I'm not
arguing for or against it, either, especially since I'm not a Swing
developer and don't know those nuances. If ASF says no to LGPL,
though, then that is the answer.
/dev/mrg
On 10/30/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> > That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> > at the moment.
>
> What actually matters to us is this:
>
> http://apache.org/legal/3party.html
>
> We can't distribute LGPL'd dependencies with Apache Cayenne.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:37 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>
> > OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-)
> >
> > LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in
> > commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To
> > quote from the GNU itself:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> >
> > "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> > is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> > of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> > the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> > library makes it available only for free programs."
> >
> > This is why the GNU C library is LGPL:
> >
> > "This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
> > there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
> > have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
> > for them, only for us."
> >
> > A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and
> > linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary.
> >
> > That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> > at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and
> > used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the
> > application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how
> > utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF
> > licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary
> > software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the
> > application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is
> > the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
> >
> > From the GPL FAQ:
> >
> > If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> > that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> > Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
> > library.
> >
> > (note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there)
> >
> > and:
> >
> > How does the LGPL work with Java?
> > See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for
> > details. It works as designed, intended, and expected.
> >
> >
> >
> > /dev/mrg
> >
> >
> > On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> >> Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
> >> (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
> >> AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
> >> willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
> >> here is a link:
> >>
> >> https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?
> >> list=users&msgNo=1210
> >>
> >> While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
> >> besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
> >> it myself :-)
> >>
> >> Andrus
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
> That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> at the moment.
What actually matters to us is this:
http://apache.org/legal/3party.html
We can't distribute LGPL'd dependencies with Apache Cayenne.
Andrus
On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:37 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-)
>
> LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in
> commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To
> quote from the GNU itself:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
> of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
> the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
> library makes it available only for free programs."
>
> This is why the GNU C library is LGPL:
>
> "This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
> there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
> have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
> for them, only for us."
>
> A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and
> linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary.
>
> That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
> at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and
> used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the
> application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how
> utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF
> licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary
> software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the
> application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is
> the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
>
> From the GPL FAQ:
>
> If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
> library.
>
> (note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there)
>
> and:
>
> How does the LGPL work with Java?
> See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for
> details. It works as designed, intended, and expected.
>
>
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>> Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
>> (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
>> AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
>> willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
>> here is a link:
>>
>> https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?
>> list=users&msgNo=1210
>>
>> While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
>> besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
>> it myself :-)
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>
Re: AppFramework licensing discussion
Posted by Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com>.
OK, I'm not a lawyer, but ... :-)
LGPL (but not GPL) code can be included (or linked at compile time) in
commercial code and it doesn't open-source the commercial code. To
quote from the GNU itself:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
"The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice
of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of
the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
library makes it available only for free programs."
This is why the GNU C library is LGPL:
"This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would
have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem
for them, only for us."
A commercial/proprietary application can be compiled with GCC and
linked with the GNU C library and still be proprietary.
That being said, I don't know the official Apache stance on the matter
at the moment. However, even if Cayenne Modeler were proprietary and
used LGPL code, that would not change the proprietary nature of the
application. Of course, CM is not proprietary and I can't imagine how
utilizing a library or another tool that is LPGL would change the ASF
licensing of CM since LPGL doesn't change the licensing of proprietary
software. I do believe the LPGL wants it to be known that the
application (CM in this case) utilizes LPGL software and maybe that is
the issue ASF would have? Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
>From the GPL FAQ:
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
(note that it is mentioning GPL vs LGPL there)
and:
How does the LGPL work with Java?
See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html for
details. It works as designed, intended, and expected.
/dev/mrg
On 10/29/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> Tom started an ASF vs. LGPL discussion with the AppFramework project
> (that is mainly being developed by sun). If anybody thinks that
> AppFramework is a technology important enough for the Modeler and is
> willing to argue why an ASF/BSD/MIT license is a good thing for them,
> here is a link:
>
> https://appframework.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=1210
>
> While the framework looks nice, I haven't evaluated it for real yet,
> besides that'll likely start a flame war, so I am staying away from
> it myself :-)
>
> Andrus
>