You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org> on 2008/08/01 00:06:04 UTC
SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Hi,
I stumbled upon the SyntaxHighlighter project on Google Code [1], it's a
Javascript syntax highlighter for code snippets embedded in web pages.
This may be nice to enhance the code examples on the Apache Commons
site, however it's licensed under the LGPL.
1. Is it ok to use it for the pages hosted on the Apache servers ?
2. Is it ok to distribute it in the source or binary distribution
including a copy of the web site documentation ?
Emmanuel Bourg
[1] http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Note, we need to add this to resolved.html.
Hen
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Sam Ruby a écrit :
>>
>>> provided that such uses are clearly marked and
>>> can be easily removed by those that may wish to do so?
>>
>> Removing the highlighter is as simple as removing the javascript file, the
>> documentation will still be usable. However how should the usage be "clearly
>> marked" ? Putting a LGPL header in the javascript file is sufficient ?
>
> I would hope that something short of a code scan would enable people
> to find this.
>
> A simple, non-alarmist, statement in a README that identifies the file
> and makes the assertion that you provided above (namely that the
> documentation is still usable if this javascript file is removed)
> would completely address my concern.
>
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sam Ruby a écrit :
>
>> provided that such uses are clearly marked and
>> can be easily removed by those that may wish to do so?
>
> Removing the highlighter is as simple as removing the javascript file, the
> documentation will still be usable. However how should the usage be "clearly
> marked" ? Putting a LGPL header in the javascript file is sufficient ?
I would hope that something short of a code scan would enable people
to find this.
A simple, non-alarmist, statement in a README that identifies the file
and makes the assertion that you provided above (namely that the
documentation is still usable if this javascript file is removed)
would completely address my concern.
> Emmanuel Bourg
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
Sam Ruby a écrit :
> provided that such uses are clearly marked and
> can be easily removed by those that may wish to do so?
Removing the highlighter is as simple as removing the javascript file,
the documentation will still be usable. However how should the usage be
"clearly marked" ? Putting a LGPL header in the javascript file is
sufficient ?
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
+1 from me
cheers,
Roland
Sam Ruby wrote:
> So: do we have agreement that LGPL'ed JavaScript may be placed in
> source form on our web site, and may be included in product downloads,
> again in source form, for the purposes of enhancing the display of
> product documentation, provided that such uses are clearly marked and
> can be easily removed by those that may wish to do so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:11 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> Usage is described here:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/wiki/Usage
>>
>> The key being lines like the following
>>
>> <script language="javascript" src="js/shCore.js"></script>
>>
>> The question is where js/shCore.js can be obtained from, and whether
>> the location is relevant.
>>
>> Given the use case, I continue to be unconcerned.
>
> Agreed; shCore.js is source. It won't become binary as distributed
> for our websites. So the additional copyleft "restrictions" aren't
> restrictions at all.
OK, so if there isn't concern, I'd rather pursue a statement that we
can quickly come to consensus on now rather than attempt address the
larger and somewhat more contentious issues which may produce an
answer much later.
So: do we have agreement that LGPL'ed JavaScript may be placed in
source form on our web site, and may be included in product downloads,
again in source form, for the purposes of enhancing the display of
product documentation, provided that such uses are clearly marked and
can be easily removed by those that may wish to do so?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Usage is described here:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/wiki/Usage
>
> The key being lines like the following
>
> <script language="javascript" src="js/shCore.js"></script>
>
> The question is where js/shCore.js can be obtained from, and whether
> the location is relevant.
>
> Given the use case, I continue to be unconcerned.
Agreed; shCore.js is source. It won't become binary as distributed
for our websites. So the additional copyleft "restrictions" aren't
restrictions at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Is it ok to distribute it in the source or binary distribution
>>>> including a copy of the web site documentation ?
>>>
>>> No. Sounds easy to obtain, offer pointers.
>>
>> A number of people are comfortable with LGPL (I don't happen to be one
>> of them, but...). A number of people are comfortable with reciprocal
>> licenses not being an issue in the context of scripts which are
>> delivered in source form anyway (this applies to me). I don't happen
>> to see syntax highlighting in documentation as a "hard" dependency.
>
> Here's my thought; if the site which ships these client-side scripts
> we are fine posting them on our site (script == source, comes back to
> the whole issue of dtd files etc always being represented in source form,
> so LGPL copyleft isn't any "additional" restriction).
>
> If these are clientside jars for java, then it becomes a question; don't
> we want to point these to the appropriate host site, so that the user CAN
> obtain the source code as spelled out in the LGPL. We remove the burden
> from the ASF.
>
> So in the second case, my only question is how would this be a hardship
> to pull it from it's 'reference' location on the web?
Unless I'm misreading the website, we are not talking about java, we
are not talking about jars, and we are not talking about a situation
where user interaction is typically involved in the download.
Usage is described here:
http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/wiki/Usage
The key being lines like the following
<script language="javascript" src="js/shCore.js"></script>
The question is where js/shCore.js can be obtained from, and whether
the location is relevant.
Given the use case, I continue to be unconcerned.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 2. Is it ok to distribute it in the source or binary distribution
>>> including a copy of the web site documentation ?
>> No. Sounds easy to obtain, offer pointers.
>
> A number of people are comfortable with LGPL (I don't happen to be one
> of them, but...). A number of people are comfortable with reciprocal
> licenses not being an issue in the context of scripts which are
> delivered in source form anyway (this applies to me). I don't happen
> to see syntax highlighting in documentation as a "hard" dependency.
Here's my thought; if the site which ships these client-side scripts
we are fine posting them on our site (script == source, comes back to
the whole issue of dtd files etc always being represented in source form,
so LGPL copyleft isn't any "additional" restriction).
If these are clientside jars for java, then it becomes a question; don't
we want to point these to the appropriate host site, so that the user CAN
obtain the source code as spelled out in the LGPL. We remove the burden
from the ASF.
So in the second case, my only question is how would this be a hardship
to pull it from it's 'reference' location on the web?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:16 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I stumbled upon the SyntaxHighlighter project on Google Code [1], it's a
>> Javascript syntax highlighter for code snippets embedded in web pages. This
>> may be nice to enhance the code examples on the Apache Commons site, however
>> it's licensed under the LGPL.
>>
>> 1. Is it ok to use it for the pages hosted on the Apache servers ?
>
> Yes. our pages are hosted on BSD. But some are hosted on solaris, and
> there's no reason that the right distribution of linux over bsd would not
> be used. Generating things in [L]GPL code is fine unless the products
> licensing pollutes the result set.
SyntaxHighlighter is 100% client side. In order to make use of it, we
would need to include script tags that cause the documentation source
which would cause the LGPL code to be downloaded along with our pages.
I would imagine that this would involve serving the script sources
from our servers.
That being said, us permitting this usage would not bother me in the slightest.
>> 2. Is it ok to distribute it in the source or binary distribution
>> including a copy of the web site documentation ?
>
> No. Sounds easy to obtain, offer pointers.
A number of people are comfortable with LGPL (I don't happen to be one
of them, but...). A number of people are comfortable with reciprocal
licenses not being an issue in the context of scripts which are
delivered in source form anyway (this applies to me). I don't happen
to see syntax highlighting in documentation as a "hard" dependency.
Considering all three factors together, I would be willing to
entertain discussions of a limited exemption for such usages as long
as they are clearly documented so that those that would be concerned
could remove these files.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I stumbled upon the SyntaxHighlighter project on Google Code [1], it's a
> Javascript syntax highlighter for code snippets embedded in web pages.
> This may be nice to enhance the code examples on the Apache Commons
> site, however it's licensed under the LGPL.
>
> 1. Is it ok to use it for the pages hosted on the Apache servers ?
Yes. our pages are hosted on BSD. But some are hosted on solaris, and
there's no reason that the right distribution of linux over bsd would not
be used. Generating things in [L]GPL code is fine unless the products
licensing pollutes the result set.
> 2. Is it ok to distribute it in the source or binary distribution
> including a copy of the web site documentation ?
No. Sounds easy to obtain, offer pointers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: SyntaxHighlighter - LGPL
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
This is the same type of issue as the Cobertura plugin:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/luukuehijisvoawo
...with the issue being recently resolved as OK:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-19
Niall
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I stumbled upon the SyntaxHighlighter project on Google Code [1], it's a
> Javascript syntax highlighter for code snippets embedded in web pages. This
> may be nice to enhance the code examples on the Apache Commons site, however
> it's licensed under the LGPL.
>
> 1. Is it ok to use it for the pages hosted on the Apache servers ?
>
> 2. Is it ok to distribute it in the source or binary distribution including
> a copy of the web site documentation ?
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org