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
list:

http://s.apache.org/neo4j-license-discussion


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

Rob

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

>Top posting, as my question doesn't fit neatly into your (excellent!)
>background.
>
>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>
>wrote:
>> 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
>>core
>> runtime is using. Especially for Storage, there are many (14)
>> implementations in the main source tree, a few in the sandbox, and more
>>are
>> 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,
>>such
>> as Amazon S3 or Google AppEngine. It is in our opinion that such
>>dependency
>> is not a barrier for releasing these extensions in our SDK, since the
>>user
>> 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
>>seems(!)
>> 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
>>was
>> offered, and the conclusion was, that 1. Qi4j project was clear, 2. if
>> anyone chose to use Neo4j Extension they would indirectly become
>>dependent
>> on AGPL and hence the entire application would be required to AGPL.
>>Pre-ASF,
>> we thought that this was still Ok. Once the GPLv3 version become
>>available,
>> 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
>>users
>> are not inadvertently failing to comply with licensing?
>>
>>   4. Do we need to obtain further clarification from Neo Technologies?
>>At
>> 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


Mime
View raw message