groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: In shape for a 2.4.4 release?
Date Sun, 31 May 2015 20:51:27 GMT
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:48 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.

This is exactly my understanding as well and something I've seen
on all the other projects I've participated.


View raw message