groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: In shape for a 2.4.4 release?
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 04:16:53 GMT
On 21/05/2015 1:48 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> 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.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I think what we have is correct then.
The Groovy parser requires Antlr and ASM to run, so we'll keep the licensing
in the source bundle. Always good just to double check.

Thanks, Paul.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


Mime
View raw message