ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LGPL
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 07:31:28 GMT
Guys,

If we only link with compiled LGPL library why is it considered unfriendly?
As far as I know LGPL allows even commercial application to ship such
libraries with them, am I wrong? Why we need all this hustle with
downloading scripts?

Sergi

2015-01-28 6:22 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>:

> As Brane mentioned one of the way is to provide a simple helper script that
> can be run as a part of the installation and bring the needed binaries
> down.
> This of course should go with a warning to the user that some non-ASL
> friendly
> libraries will be downloaded. Having such a script as a part of the source
> release is totally acceptable as well ;)
>
> That seems to be the most appropriate way to go without doing a lot of the
> code changes.
>
> Cos
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:11PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > Sergi,
> >
> > I also think this is OK form Apache stand point.
> >
> > However, I still don't like bundling TPS, licensed under LGPL, together
> > with H2, licensed under EPL, as one dependency. This would imply that our
> > users who choose to use only H2 indexing under EPL license, now have to
> > also agree to LGPL license because of TPS. It does not make sense. We
> > should move TPS into a separate dependency module which will be licensed
> > under LGPL.
> >
> > I filed a ticket for this:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-140
> > . We can continue this discussion there.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> > > > Mentors,
> > > >
> > > > We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with
> their
> > > > library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary
> > > > distribution with this library included while on the source code
> level it
> > > > is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here?
> I
> > > > currently see none.
> > >
> > > I think we already had this discussion. :)
> > >
> > > Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies
> > > are not.
> > >
> > > "Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the
> > > user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using
> > > Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version
> of
> > > Ignite that uses that code.
> > >
> > > As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say
> > > they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution
> > > /may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible,
> > > I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the
> > > user add it and detect its presence at runtime.
> > >
> > > -- Brane
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message