Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: shaposhnik@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <555D558A.7020009@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADQzvm=-0Yob9M+43Sw08HsY0TWoYZ00UJ5SrNDzLsTS_YbGPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<555D08D9.8050804@asert.com.au>
	<555D558A.7020009@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 13:51:27 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+ULb+sEhVp4Ubbg2LzwNcTFwi=MtNPbfpg0GmF_F7N1=RRSaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: In shape for a 2.4.4 release?
From: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Emmanuel L=C3=A9charny <elecharny@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> Le 21/05/15 00:21, Paul King a =C3=A9crit :
>> On 20/05/2015 5:36 AM, C=C3=A9dric 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) ou=
r
>> 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 th=
e
>> 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 includ=
e
>> 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.

Thanks,
Roman.