incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: License implications of build-time or test-time dependencies?
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:19:22 GMT
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 October 2011 16:01, Herbert Dürr <hdu@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2011/10/20 11:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni<pfg@apache.org>
 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm ...
>>>>>> We have discussed some of the things that must be replaced but we
have
>>>>>> not drawn a roadmap about it beyond the initial migration list. I
think we
>>>>>> will have to open BZ issues for those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gtk/qt issue is rather critcal: I do not think there is previous
>>>>>> history among Apache projects depending on them but if we cannot
consider
>>>>>> those "system provided" libraries it would be a serious setback to
an early
>>>>>> Apache release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would support allowing C/C++ code to link to gtk and/or qt, provided
>>>>> we don't distribute gtk or qt themselves.  Both are LGPL.  The LGPL
is
>>>>> clear for languages like C, C++.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clear in what sense?  Dynamic linking and such?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent question.  The definition of 'link' is well understood in
>>> the context of C/C++.  That's all I meant to say.
>>>
>>> I'll go further and state that what I said I would support is
>>> intentionally limited in scope to only gtk and qt.  Both are commonly
>>> distributed with Linux distributions.  Other candidate LGPL licensed
>>> dependencies would have to be evaluated separately.
>>>
>>
>> Who does the evaluation? The PPMC members of the AOOo project?
>>
>> The next LGPL library that should be evaluated in that context is CUPS (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**CUPS <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS>)
>> which is quite essential for printing on many Unix platforms.
>>
>> Herbert
>>
>
> I don't want to sound too negative, but if the whole of CUPS and all its
> printer definition files have to be re-written (and that is only one
> dependency) isn't saying an Apache licensed release in early new year a bit
> optimistic?
>

No one is talking about rewriting at this point.  We're discussing
whether the dependency is well-known enough that we can justify it as
a system dependency.   Since Linux is a copyleft OS, almost anything
we do to interact with the system will need to interact with such
code.

-Rob

> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>

Mime
View raw message