www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Re: wicket git commit: Update license information
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:12:04 GMT
More inline :)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:

> Henri,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, much appreciated.
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >> - How would life be easier if we wouldn't publish the example project to
> >> maven central?
> >
> > Doesn't seem that there should be undue stress from the above, so I'm not
> > understanding
>
> The fact that we had to ask is enough stress for me :-).
>
> For what I'm worth, I'd rather not publish the binary distribution of the
> examples project through Maven central. There's little convenience in that,
> and nobody uses it as a dependency. And it saves us time uploading the
> binary, and saves space on Maven Central.
>

That makes complete sense.


>
> >> The general tenet of these questions is:
> >> - if we have an external dependency on a 3rd party library that is
> managed
> >> outside our distribution through a package management system (i.e.
> Maven),
> >> - the dependency is not optional for a given module (however users are
> >> free to consider the module optional)
> >> - do we need to add this 3rd party dependency's requirements for notice
> >> and license files?
> >
> >
> > My view is that we should when that 3rd party's library license would be
> a
> > surprise/affect the whole. Covered more formally here:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#criteria
> >
> > An EPL'd jar is, for typical uses, not going to cause any surprises (i.e.
> > it'd be unusual for someone to edit a jar file directly in such a way
> that
> > they felt they had 'lost' their changes to the required licensing).
>
> OK. In this case the documentation for the module should explicitly state
> that
> using AspectJ is required and is EPL licensed.
>
> But as we are not actually bundling the AspectJ jars, we don't have to add
> the EPL to the license file and add a notice (except for the examples
> project,
> but that convenience binary distribution is going the way of the dodo).
>

+1.


>
> >> IANAL so that is why we ask here, but in my understanding, as long as we
> >> don't actually ship the 3rd party library with our code base because is
> >> managed externally, we don't have to add the library's notice and
> license
> >> requirements.
> >
> >
> > Probably, and yes in this use case, though bear in mind the no surprise
> > principle.
> >
> > For example, if our code base required a commercial, money required,
> > library, and the user only finds out 30 days into using our code, then I
> > would absolutely want that highlighted prominently to avoid surprise
> > (assuming we'd even be happy with such a thing as a community - it's a
> > conceived example :) ).  If however our code base is written for a
> > commercial operating system, it seems unlikely the user would be
> surprised
> > as it was implicit in the context of their choice to download the
> software
> > (and also probably prominently highlighted as a part of downloading).
>
> Understood.
>
> Again, thanks!
>
>
No prob - always fun to help :)

Hen

Mime
View raw message