groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <>
Subject Re: In shape for a 2.4.4 release?
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 03:48:26 GMT
Le 21/05/15 00:21, Paul King a écrit :
> On 20/05/2015 5:36 AM, Cédric Champeau wrote:
>> I wanted to check with you what is preventing us from releasing
>> 2.4.4. [...]
> I have a question for our mentors around licensing. Just a point of
> clarification
> for the official source distribution zip. We have a number of
> dependencies
> which our build brings in and we have incorporated the appropriate
> license
> information from those dependencies into our LICENSE and NOTICE files.
> I believe this is exactly appropriate for the binary artifacts (jars) our
> build produces and for the convenience binaries we will make available
> (since
> those artifacts contain software in binary form from the respective
> dependency
> projects). This complies with the wording in those licenses similar to:
> "... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms ... are permitted
>  provided that the following conditions are met:
>  * Redistributions of source code must retain the [various license
> information]
>  * Redistributions in binary form must retain the [various license
> information]"
> In our case it is the binary form that is relevant. All good so far.
> The point of clarification is about the source distribution zip itself.
> Take ASM or ANTLR as an example. There is no source or binary artifacts
> from those projects anywhere in our source zip. The build brings down the
> needed binaries at build time which we subsequently bundle into our
> produced binary artifacts. So, back to the wording above, there is
> definitely no "redistribution" of source or binary but the fact that our
> build goes on to incorporate said dependencies, does that count as "use"?
> So, should the ASM/ANTLR etc. license info appear in the LICENSE/NOTICE
> files in the root of our source distribution zip? We currently do include
> them but I am conscious of the need to keep those files containing just
> the required information and no more.

AFAIK, antlr produces Java code that requires a antlr bundle to run : in
this case, you 'use' antlr.

In other words, if the tool you use generates some Java code (or
anything else) that is not using any part of the tool, then I don't
think you need to retain the license.

View raw message