felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: Should I move JMood to the trunk?
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:33:11 GMT
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> stephane.frenot@insa-lyon.fr wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:20:36PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
>>> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>>> On Friday 01 September 2006 16:58, santillan wrote:
>>>>> Just a note: while JMood's initial version was LGPL'd, a software
>>>>> grant was
>>>>> given to the ASF and the JMood code in the trunk is properly ASL'd.
>>>>> Moreover, I've removed the dependency to MX4J just in case (as it
>>>>> was easy
>>>>> to refactor), so currently only depends on osgi.core,
>>>>> osgi.compendium, the
>>>>> framework and Junit, so no licensing problems here :-)
>>>> Cool. So we are discussing a hypothetical case ;o)
>>> Well, the issue that remains is how we use jfree and jcommon, both of
>>> which are, as I understand it, Jmood dependencies, and both are LGPL.
>> Not Jmood, but MOSGi dependencies.
> Yes, people seemed to have gotten lost. :-)

Well, I have, certainly. Remember, when it comes to Felix, I'm
definitely not technical - and can't follow everything you guys are up
to :-)

> Well, the way I see it, if we cannot find compatible graphing libraries,
> then we can either remove the component and Stephane can host it
> separately (perhaps at Source Forge) or we can create some sort of
> bridging and make it optional somehow. Stephane probably knows what
> makes the most sense.

Yes, that sounds right. (The bridging basically could simply be a readme
that says "This component can also handle graphing, but requires LGPL
libraries which are Apache License incompatible to do so. If you are
happy to use these libraries, you can download them from ..."

We could check that on legal-discuss, but I suspect that would be
acceptable wording.

This should, IMO, be fine, as MOSGi itself is an optional component of
Felix, and the charting part is an optional part of that. I think we've
got the 'optional' bit covered :-)

Regards, Upayavira

View raw message