LGPL issues

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

Just an update on the LGPL issue.

Various discussions on pmc@incubator about whether Roller can release
with LGPL dependencies.

One thing that's pretty clear is that we'll have to ditch the LGPL'd
jars in SVN (and the BCL'd ones). It's ASF policy to have only ASF
licensed works within the source repositories; and I can't think of
any examples to the contrary.

Hopefully we can make the releases before complicating things by
removing the jars.

One item of note; the board are meeting next week (Wednesday at a
guess) and the LGPL issue is on the agenda, though I don't think items
have to be cleared off the agenda each time so that's not a guarantee.

Hen

Re: LGPL issues

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

Changing my previous post; let's see what Noel has to say and failing
that start charging 1.3 to java.net on Monday (Dave's time
permitting).

On 11/11/05, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Look for a message from me this weekend.
>
>         --- Noel
>

re: LGPL issues (in Roller 2.1)

[Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org>]

On Nov 11, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> At some point soon I'll need to stop dawdling and go ahead and remove
> the jars. Sunday evening (my usual do-things-with-roller time) is a
> possible time for me to sit and play with having Ant do the right
> thing etc.

I attached the "Download LGPL dependencies" proposal to the Roller 2.1  
proposal, but its just a shell. So, let's start by filling it in and  
creating a proposal for removing those components from the repo and the  
release builds without breakage.

<http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp? 
page=Proposal_DownloadLGPLDependencies>
<http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp? 
page=Proposal_Roller_2.1_Release>

- Dave

Re: LGPL issues

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

On 11/11/05, Allen Gilliland <Al...@sun.com> wrote:
> So, I know we've kinda covered this ground before, but is there really no way for us to release now even if it's only on rollerweblogger.org?

Sorry if I've not explained this well in the last few weeks; there's
nothing saying we can't release on rollerweblogger.org. It's a part of
the ASF licence that we all love; anyone can fork/use etc. It's
frowned on by some for a core developer to be releasing a fork; but I
think we can make it very clear that this is the community releasing a
fork and not just Dave. That frowning came over pretty strongly from
various board members, but I'm confident that we're on firm ground.

There are a few things we need to make sure we do. Mainly in branding;
ie) don't imply it's an Apache release. Someday you'd probably not be
able to use the word Roller or something; but we're not there yet.
[ie) you can't release a fork of Tomcat and call it Tomcat-Fork]. We
(I) definitely need to make sure that we're pedantic about reporting
constantly to the pmc@incubator list so they're not surprised by
anything we do.

For 1.3, I think we should be charging on and getting it released at
roller/java.net as soon as 1.3 is ready/the release manager (Dave
currently) has time to roll the bits, have us check for anything that
looks bad and then get the release out. I'd really like to see this
happen before the pressure increases for us to remove the lgpl/bcl
jars from svn.

> Saying that they are going to talk about it next Wednesday is good, but like you said, that doesn't guarantee any decisions.  We are getting *way* too far behind to continue to let the weeks slip by.

Right. 2.0 is to be a chunk after 1.3 anyway (weeks I presume); so at
least we'll have the board meeting out of the way before the 2.0
release. Biggest pain on 2.0 (from my viewpoint) is whether we can get
the jars removed and a basic set of instructions/ant output to tell
people to put jars in place before release.

At some point soon I'll need to stop dawdling and go ahead and remove
the jars. Sunday evening (my usual do-things-with-roller time) is a
possible time for me to sit and play with having Ant do the right
thing etc.

> It's already been 4 months since our last release and we basically have two completed releases finished and waiting to be let out.  On top of that we are already well into Roller 2.1 development and I am expecting that in the next week or so we should be committing Roller 2.1 code to the trunk.
>
> I hate to be pushy about this because I do not want to back out of the incubator, but we have to make a decision.  This problem is now starting to inhibit our ability to work on the project.

Understood.

It's at least better than going through all this in 6 months and
having lawyers tell us to delete releases from mirrors etc; but it
definitely is a huge pain when something like this gets in the way of
momentum.

Hen

RE: LGPL issues

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Look for a message from me this weekend.

	--- Noel

Re: LGPL issues

[Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>]

So, I know we've kinda covered this ground before, but is there really no way for us to release now even if it's only on rollerweblogger.org?

Saying that they are going to talk about it next Wednesday is good, but like you said, that doesn't guarantee any decisions.  We are getting *way* too far behind to continue to let the weeks slip by.

It's already been 4 months since our last release and we basically have two completed releases finished and waiting to be let out.  On top of that we are already well into Roller 2.1 development and I am expecting that in the next week or so we should be committing Roller 2.1 code to the trunk.

I hate to be pushy about this because I do not want to back out of the incubator, but we have to make a decision.  This problem is now starting to inhibit our ability to work on the project.

-- Allen


On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 19:59, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Just an update on the LGPL issue.
> 
> Various discussions on pmc@incubator about whether Roller can release
> with LGPL dependencies.
> 
> One thing that's pretty clear is that we'll have to ditch the LGPL'd
> jars in SVN (and the BCL'd ones). It's ASF policy to have only ASF
> licensed works within the source repositories; and I can't think of
> any examples to the contrary.
> 
> Hopefully we can make the releases before complicating things by
> removing the jars.
> 
> One item of note; the board are meeting next week (Wednesday at a
> guess) and the LGPL issue is on the agenda, though I don't think items
> have to be cleared off the agenda each time so that's not a guarantee.
> 
> Hen