incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Date Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:49:27 GMT
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and
> > similar:
> >
> >     Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if
> >     the component is only needed for optional features, a project can
> >     provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> >     non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required
> >     for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a
> >     desirable level of quality.
> >
> > Given the above, why are we still discussing this?
>
> After further research, here's where I stand:
>
> *   I'm not going to vote on Ignite's release candidates based on this
> issue.
> *   I agree that that passage appears to grant permission for Apache
> products
>     to offer non-core features implemented against GPL-only interfaces.
> *   I question whether that interpretation was intended.  LGPL libraries
>     yes, GPL libraries no.  (FWIW, we haven't even confirmed that Ignite
>     implements against any GPL-only interfaces.)
>

Marvin,

I think Ignite does not pose a problem here because it does not have any
GPL dependencies, optional or not. The only  classes in question were the
Doug Lee's JSR 166 classes, which I think we already agreed belong to the
public domain and have to have proper headers.

As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
dependencies which are for the optional integration with the following
products:

- Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
- JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm

Please let me know if you still have concerns.

D.


> LEGAL-54, the issue where that language was formulated, discusses LGPL
> libraries and GPL build tools, but not GPL libraries.
>
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>
> See also this message from Sam Ruby (Legal VP at the time) which
> differentiates between LGPL and GPL libraries:
>
>     http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u
>
> Another issue discusses "optional" components including GPL libraries
> behind a
> generic interface:
>
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
>
> > When Subversion was incubating, 5 or so years ago, we went through the
> > same discussion regarding our dependency on Neon, even though it was
> > optional and Subversion works fine without any DAV plugin at all.
> > Subversion graduated while still having this (optional) dependency.
>
> All the discussion that I was able to find (the most important stuff was on
> private lists over a decade ago) talks about Neon as *LGPL*.
>
> > If you want to question Ignite's optional dependency on GPL code, you
> > should start by changing the published policy and making all TLPs throw
> > out such dependencies.
> >
> > Not gonna happen, right?
>
> I'm not going to go to the wall over this; I'm content to raise the point
> so
> that an interpretation I think may be faulty does not establish
> unchallenged
> precedent.  The risks are low, I'm not an lawyer, and the case law on
> whether
> API usage even creates a derivative work is in flux -- see Google vs.
> Oracle
> and appeals.
>
> Please carry on.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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