www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Rowe (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-207) May Apache projects have dependencies with prohibited licenses in test code?
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:30:43 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14078605#comment-14078605
] 

Steve Rowe edited comment on LEGAL-207 at 7/29/14 11:30 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------

bq. Calling it "test code" doesn't give any meaningful insight, since burdensome licensing
is often associated with "test code" (e.g., Java TCKs).

Rather than calling it "test code", perhaps a more appropriate description is "code that is
part of the source distribution, but is not included in the binary product"?  The issue (more
details in LEGAL-206) is that there is a set of 4 ASF projects that currently require an LGPL
dependency in order to build and execute test source code included with the official source
distribution.  This test-only dependency isn't required or included either with convenience
binaries or with binaries built from the official source distribution.

I see a previously asked question in resolved.html that I suspect is the source of the belief
expressed by committers from 3 of these projects that (paraphrasing here) the licenses of
test-only dependencies are irrelevant, since they are not included with the binary distribution:
"Can build tools be included in ASF distributions?"  The answer to that question is a qualified
"yes", though it's quite clear that the licenses of such dependencies are relevant.

bq. If you want to argue that this discussion is necessary here to update some document that
the legal affairs committee is currently maintaining in accordance with board policy, then
I would expect a patch proposal for that document (not a general question about board policy).

I'll work on a patch proposal that spells out that ASF projects may include lesser/library
test-only dependencies, where "test-only" is an example of a dependency not required to use
the binary product.  (I assume Maven's automatic dependency fetching, used by all 4 projects'
builds to get the LGPL test-only dependency, is equivalent to "inclusion".)


was (Author: steve_rowe):
bq, Calling it "test code" doesn't give any meaningful insight, since burdensome licensing
is often associated with "test code" (e.g., Java TCKs).

Rather than calling it "test code", perhaps a more appropriate description is "code that is
part of the source distribution, but is not included in the binary product"?  The issue (more
details in LEGAL-206) is that there is a set of 4 ASF projects that currently require an LGPL
dependency in order to build and execute test source code included with the official source
distribution.  This test-only dependency isn't required or included either with convenience
binaries or with binaries built from the official source distribution.

I see a previously asked question in resolved.html that I suspect is the source of the belief
expressed by committers from 3 of these projects that (paraphrasing here) the licenses of
test-only dependencies are irrelevant, since they are not included with the binary distribution:
"Can build tools be included in ASF distributions?"  The answer to that question is a qualified
"yes", though it's quite clear that the licenses of such dependencies are relevant.

bq. If you want to argue that this discussion is necessary here to update some document that
the legal affairs committee is currently maintaining in accordance with board policy, then
I would expect a patch proposal for that document (not a general question about board policy).

I'll work on a patch proposal that spells out that ASF projects may include lesser/library
test-only dependencies, where "test-only" is an example of a dependency not required to use
the binary product.  (I assume Maven's automatic dependency fetching, used by all 4 projects'
builds to get the LGPL test-only dependency, is equivalent to "inclusion".)

> May Apache projects have dependencies with prohibited licenses in test code?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-207
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-207
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Steve Rowe
>
> Spinoff from LEGAL-206.
> Are ASF projects allowed to distribute test source code that will not compile without
a 3rd party dependency that has a prohibited license?
> For example, Java test code that includes lines of the form:
> {code:java}
> import com.example.Myclass;
> ...
> Myclass clazz = new Myclass();
> {code}
> where the definition of {{com.example.Myclass}} is included in a 3rd party dependency
that has a prohibited license.
> While most products are unlikely to include compiled test source code with convenience
binaries (though some projects do, including Apache Lucene's "Lucene Core" and Solr products),
the ASF distributes source, so non-inclusion in binary distributions should not affect the
answer here. 
> This question is not directly addressed anywhere that I can find.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

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


Mime
View raw message