www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-45) optional dependency on svnkit
Date Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:53:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-45?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792828#action_12792828

Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-45:

SVNKit is not licensed under the GPL. See the license referred to above. That may not change
your opinion much. The key item in this license is "Redistributions in any form must be accompanied
by information on how to obtain complete source code for the software that uses SVNKit and
any accompanying software that uses the software that uses SVNKit."  

The case in question becomes what happens when the user of VFS doesn't include SVNKit in their
distribution. Since that won't trigger this clause I would argue that the answer is "nothing",
which would make this use case acceptable. Notice that this license doesn't mention "derivative
works" so doesn't have the same can of worms as the GPL in that regard.

> optional dependency on svnkit
> -----------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-45
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-45
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Brett Porter
> SVNKit is under a license that is somewhat similar to the GPL (it is almost identical
to the sleepycat license): http://svnkit.com/license.html
> It is unclear from the legal documentation on the status of *optional* modules. 
> Maven has developed an abstraction layer for various SCM systems, generally by running
their CLI tools. We would like to offer a provider that uses svnkit as an optional alternative
to the svn command line tools:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-providers-svn/maven-scm-provider-svnjava/
> The license of SVNKit doesn't affect our ability to distribute the provider under the
Apache License, but anyone distributing the SVNKit binary must also distribute their code
under an open source license.
> If we did this, we would keep the following:
> - it will not be made the default provider for SVN, that will remain the svn.exe based
> - it will be an optional part of the build from source (through a Maven profile), and
will not be dependend on by other parts of the code
> - instructions on the site about how to use the svnkit provider would spell out that
it requires the external dependency and that it is under a more restrictive license
> - we don't bundle and distribute svnkit as part of our releases
> Note that there is a reasonable alternate home, but it would be a shame to move the code
out of Maven's oversight for this purpose alone.
> The discussion thread is here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-scm-dev/200903.mbox/%3c9948cb690903181722s2431ec04nc6ea48e3cc2d1bc7@mail.gmail.com%3e
> Is this an acceptable use case?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message