You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@weex.apache.org by 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> on 2019/06/04 08:26:56 UTC
[DISCUSS] Do we need to list all third part files and their license
one by one?
Hi, community.
Recently, I am checking third party files in Weex and adding their license
to our LICENSE file. What happens here is that Weex copied around 1500
header files(.h file) from Webkit [1] and it is obviously that some of
these Webkit files are missed in our LICENSE[2] file.
- I can add all these files and there license to Weex LICENSE file, but
a Weex LICENSE file listed over 1500 third-party files may be too long to
read for our developers. Is it OK if I just list the directories containing
the third-part file, not the files itself?
- License for those third-part files are similar to each other, with
little difference. For example, the following two files are different only
in year. Should I take these two license as the same and only list one in
Weex LICENSE file? Otherwise, there would be tens or hundreds of third
party license header in Weex LICENSE file, which will make it hard to read
for our developers.
- /*
* Copyright (C) 2006 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
- /*
* Copyright (C) 2013, 2016 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
[1]
https://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/releases/WebKitGTK/webkit-2.17.4/
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex
Best Regards,
YorkShen
申远
Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need to list all third part files and their
license one by one?
Posted by 申远 <sh...@gmail.com>.
>
> Now I just have a quick question for the WebKit, can we just use compiled
> binary file if we don't change change the code of WebKit?
It's possible that we can just import about *50 header* files from Webkit
if we would do some major changes to Weex, which is our goal in next few
months.
But after seriously checking all the header files(.h) we copied from
Webkit, I found a more *severe* license problems. While some of the files
in Webkit is under BSD license, others are under *LGPL*. Weex just copied
some header files under LGPL license in Webkit and LGPL is under category-x
in ASF[1]. As the license checker plugin of Weex had replaced all the LGPL
license header with Apache license, I just realized the issue when I did
some research of Webkit. Though those files are just header files ( .h
files), and Weex dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit. I am still
not sure whether this is a violation of ASF's license policy.
If this is not allowed by ASF's policy, the major changes I mentioned above
could fix the problem, as the remaining 50 header files are all under BSD
license, and I have done a double check to make sure of that. Though we
still need dynamic link to Webkit which is a mixture of BSD license and
LGPL license at runtime.
BTW: I have just reverted the incorrect license header of files from
Webkit, and ones who are interested in this problem may find some files [2]
are under LGPL license. Roughly speaking, Weex copied 1500 header files
from Webkit, and 150 of them are under LGPL license, others are under BSD
license.
[1] https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
[2]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex/blob/release/0.24/weex_core/Source/include/wtf/Bitmap.h
Best Regards,
YorkShen
申远
Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月4日周二 下午6:39写道：
> If there is no other Licensed code there, it makes sense we just
> specify the directory for the License disclaimation.
> Now I just have a quick question for the WebKit, can we just use
> compiled binary file if we don't change change the code of WebKit?
>
> Regards,
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, community.
> >
> > Recently, I am checking third party files in Weex and adding their
> license
> > to our LICENSE file. What happens here is that Weex copied around 1500
> > header files(.h file) from Webkit [1] and it is obviously that some of
> > these Webkit files are missed in our LICENSE[2] file.
> >
> >
> > - I can add all these files and there license to Weex LICENSE file,
> but
> > a Weex LICENSE file listed over 1500 third-party files may be too
> long to
> > read for our developers. Is it OK if I just list the directories
> containing
> > the third-part file, not the files itself?
> > - License for those third-part files are similar to each other, with
> > little difference. For example, the following two files are different
> only
> > in year. Should I take these two license as the same and only list
> one in
> > Weex LICENSE file? Otherwise, there would be tens or hundreds of third
> > party license header in Weex LICENSE file, which will make it hard to
> read
> > for our developers.
> > - /*
> > * Copyright (C) 2006 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
> without
> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following
> conditions
> > * are met:
> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> > copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
> in
> > the
> > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> > distribution.
> > - /*
> > * Copyright (C) 2013, 2016 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
> without
> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following
> conditions
> > * are met:
> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> > copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
> in
> > the
> > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> > distribution.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/releases/WebKitGTK/webkit-2.17.4/
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > YorkShen
> >
> > 申远
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need to list all third part files and their
license one by one?
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
If there is no other Licensed code there, it makes sense we just
specify the directory for the License disclaimation.
Now I just have a quick question for the WebKit, can we just use
compiled binary file if we don't change change the code of WebKit?
Regards,
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, community.
>
> Recently, I am checking third party files in Weex and adding their license
> to our LICENSE file. What happens here is that Weex copied around 1500
> header files(.h file) from Webkit [1] and it is obviously that some of
> these Webkit files are missed in our LICENSE[2] file.
>
>
> - I can add all these files and there license to Weex LICENSE file, but
> a Weex LICENSE file listed over 1500 third-party files may be too long to
> read for our developers. Is it OK if I just list the directories containing
> the third-part file, not the files itself?
> - License for those third-part files are similar to each other, with
> little difference. For example, the following two files are different only
> in year. Should I take these two license as the same and only list one in
> Weex LICENSE file? Otherwise, there would be tens or hundreds of third
> party license header in Weex LICENSE file, which will make it hard to read
> for our developers.
> - /*
> * Copyright (C) 2006 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> the
> * documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
> - /*
> * Copyright (C) 2013, 2016 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> the
> * documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
>
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/releases/WebKitGTK/webkit-2.17.4/
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex
>
> Best Regards,
> YorkShen
>
> 申远