incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Help with Dependency Licensing
Date Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:25:30 GMT
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:

> Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache
> License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim
> that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality to the
> dependent project... Meaning, if you have an import statement linking your
> code to such dependency, there is legal uncertainty whether the entire
> project must be under the copyleft license in question. FSF certainly
> thinks so, and VP Legal has in the past concluded that we should have the
> same stance.
>
> So when is the optional Cat X dependency acceptable?
>
>
Ugh.  I hit send too soon.  Basically, what we came up with was that a
Cat-X dependency was OK when it was based on some common interface, and
never bundled within the application.  Hibernate was an example that came
up - I can provide a library that ships with integration for hibernate,
based on the JPA specification (which is Cat-B or Cat-A).


> For instance, an acceptably licensed API specification is what our project
> depend on, and some runtime mechanism (such as Java Service Loader or
> Spring Dependency Injection) make that available. Without this indirection,
> we ain't allowed to have dependency on Cat X for Java (and other
> circumstances).
>
>
> HTH
> Niclas
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Nick Couchman <
> nick.couchman@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator project,
> > and am developing an extension for the project that has dependencies on
> > binaries (JARs via Maven) that are licensed under Category-X licenses.
> > We've already determined that we cannot distribute a binary version of
> this
> > extension, but, since it is an extension (and not core to the
> functionality
> > of the product), we should be able to distribute the source code with
> build
> > instructions for the users.
> > The question I have is how we should deal with license bundling in this
> > scenario?  In the rest of this project, including other extensions, we
> > bundle a src/licenses directory that has all of the dependency licenses
> for
> > the extension.  When the binary is built, a resulting file has not only
> the
> > binary for the extension, but also all of the dependency licenses.  Since
> > we're not distributing a binary, is there any reason/need for us to
> package
> > up dependency licenses?
> > Let me know if this needs more clarification - I know this might be a bit
> > vague, but I'm in new territory, here, and am happy to provide any
> further
> > information that might help someone help me :-).
> > Thanks,Nick
>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>

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