www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org>
Subject Re: AGPL/GPL indirect dependencies
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 09:02:10 GMT
Please take a look at the recent thread on this on the Incubator mailing


As you suggest the Tinkerpop PPMC have indeed been working with the Neo4j
folks to try and get the API relicensed in a properly Apache friendly way


On 21/05/2015 00:48, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

>Top posting, as my question doesn't fit neatly into your (excellent!)
>Following your link[1], I see:
>I’m using an Apache-licensed driver to access Neo4j. What does this
>mean for my application?
>Does this apply here?
>- Sam Ruby
>On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
>> Hi,
>> Apache Zest has an Extension mechanism, we call it an SPI, where it is
>> possible to create a module that Provides an implementation that the
>> runtime is using. Especially for Storage, there are many (14)
>> implementations in the main source tree, a few in the sandbox, and more
>> likely to follow.
>> We two main issues encountered while vetting the codebase prior to first
>> release,
>> First of all, some of these implementations depend on proprietary APIs,
>> as Amazon S3 or Google AppEngine. It is in our opinion that such
>> is not a barrier for releasing these extensions in our SDK, since the
>> will only use those when they are already bound by those licensing terms
>> when choosing to use those APIs.
>> Secondly (and more complex), one of the extensions is for Neo4j, which
>>is in
>> itself licensed under AGPL (Enterprise) or GPLv3 (Community). It
>> that Neo Technology is interpreting GPLv3 that it is possible for
>>someone to
>> use Neo4j Community Edition in closed-source projects. Regardless, for
>> Apache Zest, the Neo4j Extension was written by Neo Technology
>>employees and
>> contributed to the Qi4j community under ALv2. At that time, only AGPL
>> offered, and the conclusion was, that 1. Qi4j project was clear, 2. if
>> anyone chose to use Neo4j Extension they would indirectly become
>> on AGPL and hence the entire application would be required to AGPL.
>> we thought that this was still Ok. Once the GPLv3 version become
>> we thought that now Qi4j+Neo4j/Extension+Neo4j/GPL would not require the
>> resulting application to be released under GPL, especially since our
>> downstream user could make the extension to be chosen via for instance
>> configuration, with its own code referencing it.
>> Now, under these circumstances;
>>   1. Can we release the Neo4j Extension as part of the Apache Zest SDK?
>>   2. Does the ALv2 contribution from Neo Technologies ensure that GPLv3
>> virality isn't triggered into Zest codebase?
>>   3. Do we need additional explanations/notice/gates to ensure that
>> are not inadvertently failing to comply with licensing?
>>   4. Do we need to obtain further clarification from Neo Technologies?
>> the time of the contribution, Neo was a small company and easy to
>> communicate with. Now it is filled with MBAs and lawyers, and they might
>> have a different view from back then.
>> My guess is that Tinkerpop, now in Incubator, is likely to have similar
>> relationship with Neo4j, but I haven't looked into their specific
>> circumstances.
>> [1] http://neo4j.com/licensing/
>> Cheers
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

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

View raw message