You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> on 2012/09/27 11:25:00 UTC
Licensing problems
Folks,
I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
tapestry-hibernate.
What we need to do is
1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
to the ASL
2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
them with instructions on how to obtain them
Uli
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
I fully agree with Bob's interpretation of this. Integrations to
*optional* components have traditionally been ok. I'm sure we can find
plenty of examples of this in other projects. For example,
OpenMeetings (currently in incubation) is going way, way deeper with
their integrations to (L)GPL codebases than our tapestry-hibernate,
and there are some interesting cases there if you care to follow.
Kalle
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Bob Harner <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Me too, on first read. Well worth the discussion, though.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>> Hmm, yes. Makes sense if read that way. I assumed component = tapestry-hibernate
>>
>> Uli
>>
>> On 27.09.2012 16:25, Bob Harner wrote:
>>> My "degree of dependence" phrase is a summarization of the key point
>>> at the link you cited,
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>
>>> Let me paste that text here, with our specific terms inserted [in brackets]:
>>>
>>> --- start of quote ---
>>> Can Apache projects [e.g. Tapestry Project] rely on components [e.g.
>>> Hibernate] whose licensing affects the Apache product [e.g. Tapestry]?
>>>
>>> Apache projects [Tapestry Project] cannot distribute any such
>>> components [Hibernate]. However, if the component [Hibernate] is only
>>> needed for optional features, a project [Tapestry Project] can provide
>>> the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
>>> non-included work [Hibernate]. Optional means that the component
>>> [Hibernate] is not required for standard use of the product [Tapestry]
>>> or for the product [Tapestry] to achieve a desirable level of quality.
>>> The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
>>>
>>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product [Tapestry]
>>> without adding the optional components [Hibernate]?"
>>> --- end of quote ---
>>>
>>> When I read it that way I don't see any problem. Remember, "component"
>>> in that text refers to Hibernate, *NOT* Tapestry-hibernate.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>>> On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
>>>>> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
>>>>> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
>>>>> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
>>>>> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
>>>>> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
>>>>> strikes me as bizarre.
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite simple: No GPL- and
>>>> LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want to have such a
>>>> component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to obtain it but don't
>>>> put it into your distribution.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
>>>>> modules and not losing sleep over it.
>>>>
>>>> They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product infected by the license
>>>> of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is mitigated. And yes,
>>>> even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
>>>>
>>>> It's definitely something we should discuss.
>>>>
>>>> Uli
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>>>>>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>>>>>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>>>>>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>>>>>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>>>>>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>>>>>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>>>>>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>>>>>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we need to do is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>>>>>> to the ASL
>>>>>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>>>>>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uli
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Bob Harner <bo...@gmail.com>.
Me too, on first read. Well worth the discussion, though.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> Hmm, yes. Makes sense if read that way. I assumed component = tapestry-hibernate
>
> Uli
>
> On 27.09.2012 16:25, Bob Harner wrote:
>> My "degree of dependence" phrase is a summarization of the key point
>> at the link you cited,
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>
>> Let me paste that text here, with our specific terms inserted [in brackets]:
>>
>> --- start of quote ---
>> Can Apache projects [e.g. Tapestry Project] rely on components [e.g.
>> Hibernate] whose licensing affects the Apache product [e.g. Tapestry]?
>>
>> Apache projects [Tapestry Project] cannot distribute any such
>> components [Hibernate]. However, if the component [Hibernate] is only
>> needed for optional features, a project [Tapestry Project] can provide
>> the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
>> non-included work [Hibernate]. Optional means that the component
>> [Hibernate] is not required for standard use of the product [Tapestry]
>> or for the product [Tapestry] to achieve a desirable level of quality.
>> The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
>>
>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product [Tapestry]
>> without adding the optional components [Hibernate]?"
>> --- end of quote ---
>>
>> When I read it that way I don't see any problem. Remember, "component"
>> in that text refers to Hibernate, *NOT* Tapestry-hibernate.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>> On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
>>>> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
>>>> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
>>>> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
>>>> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
>>>> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
>>>> strikes me as bizarre.
>>>
>>> Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite simple: No GPL- and
>>> LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want to have such a
>>> component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to obtain it but don't
>>> put it into your distribution.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
>>>> modules and not losing sleep over it.
>>>
>>> They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product infected by the license
>>> of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is mitigated. And yes,
>>> even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
>>>
>>> It's definitely something we should discuss.
>>>
>>> Uli
>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>>>>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>>>>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>>>>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>>>>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>>>>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>>>>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>>>>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>>>>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we need to do is
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>>>>> to the ASL
>>>>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>>>>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>>>>
>>>>> Uli
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
Hmm, yes. Makes sense if read that way. I assumed component = tapestry-hibernate
Uli
On 27.09.2012 16:25, Bob Harner wrote:
> My "degree of dependence" phrase is a summarization of the key point
> at the link you cited,
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>
> Let me paste that text here, with our specific terms inserted [in brackets]:
>
> --- start of quote ---
> Can Apache projects [e.g. Tapestry Project] rely on components [e.g.
> Hibernate] whose licensing affects the Apache product [e.g. Tapestry]?
>
> Apache projects [Tapestry Project] cannot distribute any such
> components [Hibernate]. However, if the component [Hibernate] is only
> needed for optional features, a project [Tapestry Project] can provide
> the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> non-included work [Hibernate]. Optional means that the component
> [Hibernate] is not required for standard use of the product [Tapestry]
> or for the product [Tapestry] to achieve a desirable level of quality.
> The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
>
> "Will the majority of users want to use my product [Tapestry]
> without adding the optional components [Hibernate]?"
> --- end of quote ---
>
> When I read it that way I don't see any problem. Remember, "component"
> in that text refers to Hibernate, *NOT* Tapestry-hibernate.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>> On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
>>> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
>>> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
>>> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
>>> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
>>> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
>>> strikes me as bizarre.
>>
>> Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite simple: No GPL- and
>> LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want to have such a
>> component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to obtain it but don't
>> put it into your distribution.
>>
>>>
>>> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
>>> modules and not losing sleep over it.
>>
>> They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product infected by the license
>> of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is mitigated. And yes,
>> even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
>>
>> It's definitely something we should discuss.
>>
>> Uli
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>>>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>>>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>>>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>>>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>>>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>>>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>>>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>>>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>>>
>>>> What we need to do is
>>>>
>>>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>>>> to the ASL
>>>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>>>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>>>
>>>> Uli
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Richard Frovarp <rf...@apache.org>.
From all of my dealings with licensing, your interpretation is correct.
If Tapestry depended on Hibernate to function, then there would be a
problem. However, it truly is optional. If it weren't optional, you
would have to provide a license compatible option out of the gate, with
the ability for people to switch at their choice to stay within
requirements.
On 09/27/2012 09:25 AM, Bob Harner wrote:
> My "degree of dependence" phrase is a summarization of the key point
> at the link you cited,
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>
> Let me paste that text here, with our specific terms inserted [in brackets]:
>
> --- start of quote ---
> Can Apache projects [e.g. Tapestry Project] rely on components [e.g.
> Hibernate] whose licensing affects the Apache product [e.g. Tapestry]?
>
> Apache projects [Tapestry Project] cannot distribute any such
> components [Hibernate]. However, if the component [Hibernate] is only
> needed for optional features, a project [Tapestry Project] can provide
> the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> non-included work [Hibernate]. Optional means that the component
> [Hibernate] is not required for standard use of the product [Tapestry]
> or for the product [Tapestry] to achieve a desirable level of quality.
> The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
>
> "Will the majority of users want to use my product [Tapestry]
> without adding the optional components [Hibernate]?"
> --- end of quote ---
>
> When I read it that way I don't see any problem. Remember, "component"
> in that text refers to Hibernate, *NOT* Tapestry-hibernate.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>> On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
>>> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
>>> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
>>> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
>>> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
>>> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
>>> strikes me as bizarre.
>>
>> Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite simple: No GPL- and
>> LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want to have such a
>> component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to obtain it but don't
>> put it into your distribution.
>>
>>>
>>> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
>>> modules and not losing sleep over it.
>>
>> They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product infected by the license
>> of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is mitigated. And yes,
>> even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
>>
>> It's definitely something we should discuss.
>>
>> Uli
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>>>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>>>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>>>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>>>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>>>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>>>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>>>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>>>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>>>
>>>> What we need to do is
>>>>
>>>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>>>> to the ASL
>>>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>>>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>>>
>>>> Uli
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Bob Harner <bo...@gmail.com>.
My "degree of dependence" phrase is a summarization of the key point
at the link you cited,
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
Let me paste that text here, with our specific terms inserted [in brackets]:
--- start of quote ---
Can Apache projects [e.g. Tapestry Project] rely on components [e.g.
Hibernate] whose licensing affects the Apache product [e.g. Tapestry]?
Apache projects [Tapestry Project] cannot distribute any such
components [Hibernate]. However, if the component [Hibernate] is only
needed for optional features, a project [Tapestry Project] can provide
the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
non-included work [Hibernate]. Optional means that the component
[Hibernate] is not required for standard use of the product [Tapestry]
or for the product [Tapestry] to achieve a desirable level of quality.
The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
"Will the majority of users want to use my product [Tapestry]
without adding the optional components [Hibernate]?"
--- end of quote ---
When I read it that way I don't see any problem. Remember, "component"
in that text refers to Hibernate, *NOT* Tapestry-hibernate.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
>> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
>> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
>> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
>> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
>> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
>> strikes me as bizarre.
>
> Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite simple: No GPL- and
> LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want to have such a
> component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to obtain it but don't
> put it into your distribution.
>
>>
>> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
>> modules and not losing sleep over it.
>
> They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product infected by the license
> of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is mitigated. And yes,
> even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
>
> It's definitely something we should discuss.
>
> Uli
>
>> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>>
>>> What we need to do is
>>>
>>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>>> to the ASL
>>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>>
>>> Uli
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
> strikes me as bizarre.
Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite simple: No GPL- and
LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want to have such a
component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to obtain it but don't
put it into your distribution.
>
> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
> modules and not losing sleep over it.
They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product infected by the license
of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is mitigated. And yes,
even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
It's definitely something we should discuss.
Uli
> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>
>> What we need to do is
>>
>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>> to the ASL
>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>
>> Uli
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Licensing problems
Posted by Bob Harner <bo...@gmail.com>.
I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
strikes me as bizarre.
I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
modules and not losing sleep over it.
On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
> tapestry-hibernate.
>
> What we need to do is
>
> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
> to the ASL
> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>
> Uli
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>