You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2019/07/01 16:18:53 UTC
Re: LGPL dependency
Myrle, did you get all you needed? Enough votes and all to get the release unblocked?
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've said it on dev@weex, and on private@incubator, but I wanted to make
> sure and say it here too. Weex should cut the release. We'll figure out
> the rest later. The straw poll on private@incubator also confirms: you
> have my support and the support of many of the mentors in the incubator. I
> apologize for us blocking you for so long.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle Krantz
> PMC Member, Apache Incubator
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:06 AM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks like we have got result[1] from Legal VP, I will bring it here now
>>
>> 1. It's fine if Weex only could include header files under 2-clause BSD
>> license from Webkit at compiling time and has a dynamic link to
>> Webkit.so
>> at runtime.
>> 2. It's recommended that excluding Webkit.so from Weex convenience
>> library. Users would include the code snippet below to include both weex
>> and webkit.
>>
>> <dependency>
>>
>> <artifactId>weex_sdk</artifactId>
>>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> <dependency>
>>
>> <artifactId>webkit</artifactId>
>>
>> </dependency>
>>
>>
>> The following is what I need to consult from Incubator:
>>
>> Google will ban all apps without 64 bit published in Google Play from 1st,
>> August, 2019 [1]. Though it's a good idea of excluding Webkit.so from
>> convenience library of Weex, Weex community needs to publish next release
>> with 64-bit support ASAP to give users enough time to upgrade Weex. I'd
>> like to remain webkit.so in convenience library of Weex only for next
>> release.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
>> [2] https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> YorkShen
>>
>> 申远
>>
>>
>> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 于2019年6月24日周一 上午7:32写道：
>>
>>> Lets continue this discussion on
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds like
>>>> it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t
>>> inspected
>>>> the individual files, but I suspect that the header files are BSD
>>> licensed
>>>> to make linking less of a legal headache.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 07:11, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Webkit license page https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ says
>>>>> portions licensed under LGPL and BSD licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually this means it's the user's choice which license to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would choose the BSD License for the components that we use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you find anywhere a statement that the Webkit.so is licensed only
>>>>> under LGPL?
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:40 AM, 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As mentioned above, Webkit is under dual License(BSD and LPGL) and
>>> it's
>>>>>> almost impossible for us to figure out which function is a pure BSD
>>>>>> function. I don't know
>>>>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL will
>> happen
>>> or
>>>>>> not. Perhaps pure BSD header file will lead to pure BSD
>>> implementation.
>>>>>> Perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for alternative dependency, it's possible if we make some major
>>>>> changes
>>>>>> to Weex. But convenience binary of each Weex release includes
>>> Webkit.so,
>>>>>> how to solve that problem? Maybe publish two convenience binary,
>> one
>>>>> named
>>>>>> Weex_WebKit.aar and the other named Weex_BSDKit.aar ? Not sounds
>>> like a
>>>>>> good idea to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> YorkShen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 申远
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:23写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi York
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not a C/C++ coder, so I could be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But from I saw, Catalog X dependency required is not right. Like
>> Hen
>>>>> said,
>>>>>>> alternative is an option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>>> Today’s another incubating project, ShardingSphere.
>>>>>>> When user wants to MySQL sharing, then they needs to accept MySQL
>>> Driver
>>>>>>> license first(or already accepted).
>>>>>>> But user could use ShardingSphere with PostgreSQL JDBC Driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sheng Wu
>>>>>>> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 在 2019年6月14日，下午4:15，Hen <ba...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming Weex requires Webkit and is unable to work with an
>>>>> alternative,
>>>>>>>> the issue here is that users of Weex would seem to have to permit
>>>>> reverse
>>>>>>>> engineering in their legal terms. Our position has been that that
>>> goes
>>>>>>>> beyond the scope of the Apache 2.0 license and would be an
>>> unpleasant
>>>>>>>> surprise for users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (seem to have to => this is how we've discussed the license; an
>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>> court may decide something completely different)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at Weex's website's description, it does not seem to be
>>> that a
>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>> of Weex will already have agreed to the terms of Webkit; thus I
>>> believe
>>>>>>>> they would be unpleasantly surprised.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of
>> our
>>>>>>>>> dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied
>> from
>>>>>>> Webkit
>>>>>>>>> is actually under LGPL license(Category X) and our license
>> format
>>>>> tools
>>>>>>>>> changed the license header of these files to Apache v2
>>> incorrectly.
>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>>>> like to hear advice from incubator that whether our actions
>> below
>>>>> would
>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>> the Category X issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First of all, License for Webkit is complicated, as it's said
>> that
>>>>>>> "WebKit
>>>>>>>>> is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL
>> and
>>> BSD
>>>>>>>>> licenses available here." [1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, Weex includes 1500 header files( .h files) from Webkit at
>>>>> compiling
>>>>>>>>> stage and around 150 of the are under BSD License. At runtime,
>>> Weex
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After some major change, Weex could just include around 50
>>> headers(.h
>>>>>>>>> files) at compiling stage and all of them are under BSD license.
>>> At
>>>>>>>>> runtime, Weex still needs to dynamic links to the shared library
>>> of
>>>>>>> Webkit
>>>>>>>>> as before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As Webkit is under dual license, and it's almost impossible for
>>> us to
>>>>>>>>> figure out whether there is an function call chain like
>>>>>>>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL.apiD.
>> I'd
>>>>> like
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> know our proposed change is enough to fix the Category X
>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>> YorkShen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 申远
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>> clr@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: LGPL dependency
Posted by York Shen <sh...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your supporting.
I will bring it to general@incubator when vote passed in weex@dev
Best Regards,
York Shen
申远
> 在 2019年7月2日，15:20，Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> 写道：
>
> Hey Jim,
>
> Thank you for asking. : o) Weex is still cutting the release. It's
> precisely because this can be time-consuming that they asked before they
> started. They'll bring it for a vote once they have it.
>
> Best,
> Myrle
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:19 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> Myrle, did you get all you needed? Enough votes and all to get the release
>> unblocked?
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've said it on dev@weex, and on private@incubator, but I wanted to make
>>> sure and say it here too. Weex should cut the release. We'll figure out
>>> the rest later. The straw poll on private@incubator also confirms: you
>>> have my support and the support of many of the mentors in the
>> incubator. I
>>> apologize for us blocking you for so long.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Myrle Krantz
>>> PMC Member, Apache Incubator
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:06 AM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It looks like we have got result[1] from Legal VP, I will bring it here
>> now
>>>>
>>>> 1. It's fine if Weex only could include header files under 2-clause
>> BSD
>>>> license from Webkit at compiling time and has a dynamic link to
>>>> Webkit.so
>>>> at runtime.
>>>> 2. It's recommended that excluding Webkit.so from Weex convenience
>>>> library. Users would include the code snippet below to include both
>> weex
>>>> and webkit.
>>>>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>>
>>>> <artifactId>weex_sdk</artifactId>
>>>>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>>
>>>> <artifactId>webkit</artifactId>
>>>>
>>>> </dependency>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following is what I need to consult from Incubator:
>>>>
>>>> Google will ban all apps without 64 bit published in Google Play from
>> 1st,
>>>> August, 2019 [1]. Though it's a good idea of excluding Webkit.so from
>>>> convenience library of Weex, Weex community needs to publish next
>> release
>>>> with 64-bit support ASAP to give users enough time to upgrade Weex. I'd
>>>> like to remain webkit.so in convenience library of Weex only for next
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
>>>> [2]
>> https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> YorkShen
>>>>
>>>> 申远
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 于2019年6月24日周一 上午7:32写道：
>>>>
>>>>> Lets continue this discussion on
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds
>> like
>>>>>> it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t
>>>>> inspected
>>>>>> the individual files, but I suspect that the header files are BSD
>>>>> licensed
>>>>>> to make linking less of a legal headache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 07:11, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Webkit license page https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ says
>>>>>>> portions licensed under LGPL and BSD licenses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usually this means it's the user's choice which license to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would choose the BSD License for the components that we use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you find anywhere a statement that the Webkit.so is licensed only
>>>>>>> under LGPL?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:40 AM, 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As mentioned above, Webkit is under dual License(BSD and LPGL) and
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> almost impossible for us to figure out which function is a pure BSD
>>>>>>>> function. I don't know
>>>>>>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL will
>>>> happen
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> not. Perhaps pure BSD header file will lead to pure BSD
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for alternative dependency, it's possible if we make some major
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> to Weex. But convenience binary of each Weex release includes
>>>>> Webkit.so,
>>>>>>>> how to solve that problem? Maybe publish two convenience binary,
>>>> one
>>>>>>> named
>>>>>>>> Weex_WebKit.aar and the other named Weex_BSDKit.aar ? Not sounds
>>>>> like a
>>>>>>>> good idea to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>> YorkShen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 申远
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:23写道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi York
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not a C/C++ coder, so I could be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But from I saw, Catalog X dependency required is not right. Like
>>>> Hen
>>>>>>> said,
>>>>>>>>> alternative is an option.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>>>>> Today’s another incubating project, ShardingSphere.
>>>>>>>>> When user wants to MySQL sharing, then they needs to accept MySQL
>>>>> Driver
>>>>>>>>> license first(or already accepted).
>>>>>>>>> But user could use ShardingSphere with PostgreSQL JDBC Driver.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sheng Wu
>>>>>>>>> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 在 2019年6月14日，下午4:15，Hen <ba...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assuming Weex requires Webkit and is unable to work with an
>>>>>>> alternative,
>>>>>>>>>> the issue here is that users of Weex would seem to have to permit
>>>>>>> reverse
>>>>>>>>>> engineering in their legal terms. Our position has been that that
>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>>> beyond the scope of the Apache 2.0 license and would be an
>>>>> unpleasant
>>>>>>>>>> surprise for users.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (seem to have to => this is how we've discussed the license; an
>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>> court may decide something completely different)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Weex's website's description, it does not seem to be
>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>> of Weex will already have agreed to the terms of Webkit; thus I
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>> they would be unpleasantly surprised.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of
>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied
>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Webkit
>>>>>>>>>>> is actually under LGPL license(Category X) and our license
>>>> format
>>>>>>> tools
>>>>>>>>>>> changed the license header of these files to Apache v2
>>>>> incorrectly.
>>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>>>>>> like to hear advice from incubator that whether our actions
>>>> below
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>> the Category X issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, License for Webkit is complicated, as it's said
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> "WebKit
>>>>>>>>>>> is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL
>>>> and
>>>>> BSD
>>>>>>>>>>> licenses available here." [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, Weex includes 1500 header files( .h files) from Webkit at
>>>>>>> compiling
>>>>>>>>>>> stage and around 150 of the are under BSD License. At runtime,
>>>>> Weex
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After some major change, Weex could just include around 50
>>>>> headers(.h
>>>>>>>>>>> files) at compiling stage and all of them are under BSD license.
>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime, Weex still needs to dynamic links to the shared library
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Webkit
>>>>>>>>>>> as before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As Webkit is under dual license, and it's almost impossible for
>>>>> us to
>>>>>>>>>>> figure out whether there is an function call chain like
>>>>>>>>>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL.apiD.
>>>> I'd
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> know our proposed change is enough to fix the Category X
>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> YorkShen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 申远
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>>>> clr@apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: LGPL dependency
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Jim,
Thank you for asking. : o) Weex is still cutting the release. It's
precisely because this can be time-consuming that they asked before they
started. They'll bring it for a vote once they have it.
Best,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:19 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Myrle, did you get all you needed? Enough votes and all to get the release
> unblocked?
>
> > On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've said it on dev@weex, and on private@incubator, but I wanted to make
> > sure and say it here too. Weex should cut the release. We'll figure out
> > the rest later. The straw poll on private@incubator also confirms: you
> > have my support and the support of many of the mentors in the
> incubator. I
> > apologize for us blocking you for so long.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Myrle Krantz
> > PMC Member, Apache Incubator
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:06 AM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It looks like we have got result[1] from Legal VP, I will bring it here
> now
> >>
> >> 1. It's fine if Weex only could include header files under 2-clause
> BSD
> >> license from Webkit at compiling time and has a dynamic link to
> >> Webkit.so
> >> at runtime.
> >> 2. It's recommended that excluding Webkit.so from Weex convenience
> >> library. Users would include the code snippet below to include both
> weex
> >> and webkit.
> >>
> >> <dependency>
> >>
> >> <artifactId>weex_sdk</artifactId>
> >>
> >> </dependency>
> >>
> >> <dependency>
> >>
> >> <artifactId>webkit</artifactId>
> >>
> >> </dependency>
> >>
> >>
> >> The following is what I need to consult from Incubator:
> >>
> >> Google will ban all apps without 64 bit published in Google Play from
> 1st,
> >> August, 2019 [1]. Though it's a good idea of excluding Webkit.so from
> >> convenience library of Weex, Weex community needs to publish next
> release
> >> with 64-bit support ASAP to give users enough time to upgrade Weex. I'd
> >> like to remain webkit.so in convenience library of Weex only for next
> >> release.
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
> >> [2]
> https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> YorkShen
> >>
> >> 申远
> >>
> >>
> >> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 于2019年6月24日周一 上午7:32写道：
> >>
> >>> Lets continue this discussion on
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds
> like
> >>>> it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t
> >>> inspected
> >>>> the individual files, but I suspect that the header files are BSD
> >>> licensed
> >>>> to make linking less of a legal headache.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 07:11, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Webkit license page https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ says
> >>>>> portions licensed under LGPL and BSD licenses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Usually this means it's the user's choice which license to use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We would choose the BSD License for the components that we use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you find anywhere a statement that the Webkit.so is licensed only
> >>>>> under LGPL?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Craig
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:40 AM, 申远 <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As mentioned above, Webkit is under dual License(BSD and LPGL) and
> >>> it's
> >>>>>> almost impossible for us to figure out which function is a pure BSD
> >>>>>> function. I don't know
> >>>>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL will
> >> happen
> >>> or
> >>>>>> not. Perhaps pure BSD header file will lead to pure BSD
> >>> implementation.
> >>>>>> Perhaps?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for alternative dependency, it's possible if we make some major
> >>>>> changes
> >>>>>> to Weex. But convenience binary of each Weex release includes
> >>> Webkit.so,
> >>>>>> how to solve that problem? Maybe publish two convenience binary,
> >> one
> >>>>> named
> >>>>>> Weex_WebKit.aar and the other named Weex_BSDKit.aar ? Not sounds
> >>> like a
> >>>>>> good idea to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>>> YorkShen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 申远
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:23写道：
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi York
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am not a C/C++ coder, so I could be wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But from I saw, Catalog X dependency required is not right. Like
> >> Hen
> >>>>> said,
> >>>>>>> alternative is an option.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Such as
> >>>>>>> Today’s another incubating project, ShardingSphere.
> >>>>>>> When user wants to MySQL sharing, then they needs to accept MySQL
> >>> Driver
> >>>>>>> license first(or already accepted).
> >>>>>>> But user could use ShardingSphere with PostgreSQL JDBC Driver.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sheng Wu
> >>>>>>> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 在 2019年6月14日，下午4:15，Hen <ba...@apache.org> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Assuming Weex requires Webkit and is unable to work with an
> >>>>> alternative,
> >>>>>>>> the issue here is that users of Weex would seem to have to permit
> >>>>> reverse
> >>>>>>>> engineering in their legal terms. Our position has been that that
> >>> goes
> >>>>>>>> beyond the scope of the Apache 2.0 license and would be an
> >>> unpleasant
> >>>>>>>> surprise for users.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (seem to have to => this is how we've discussed the license; an
> >>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>> court may decide something completely different)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Looking at Weex's website's description, it does not seem to be
> >>> that a
> >>>>>>> user
> >>>>>>>> of Weex will already have agreed to the terms of Webkit; thus I
> >>> believe
> >>>>>>>> they would be unpleasantly surprised.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hen
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 <sh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of
> >> our
> >>>>>>>>> dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied
> >> from
> >>>>>>> Webkit
> >>>>>>>>> is actually under LGPL license(Category X) and our license
> >> format
> >>>>> tools
> >>>>>>>>> changed the license header of these files to Apache v2
> >>> incorrectly.
> >>>>> I'd
> >>>>>>>>> like to hear advice from incubator that whether our actions
> >> below
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>> the Category X issue.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> First of all, License for Webkit is complicated, as it's said
> >> that
> >>>>>>> "WebKit
> >>>>>>>>> is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL
> >> and
> >>> BSD
> >>>>>>>>> licenses available here." [1].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now, Weex includes 1500 header files( .h files) from Webkit at
> >>>>> compiling
> >>>>>>>>> stage and around 150 of the are under BSD License. At runtime,
> >>> Weex
> >>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>> dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> After some major change, Weex could just include around 50
> >>> headers(.h
> >>>>>>>>> files) at compiling stage and all of them are under BSD license.
> >>> At
> >>>>>>>>> runtime, Weex still needs to dynamic links to the shared library
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> Webkit
> >>>>>>>>> as before.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As Webkit is under dual license, and it's almost impossible for
> >>> us to
> >>>>>>>>> figure out whether there is an function call chain like
> >>>>>>>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL.apiD.
> >> I'd
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> know our proposed change is enough to fix the Category X
> >>> dependency.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> YorkShen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 申远
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Craig L Russell
> >>>>> clr@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>