Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALGG8z0q9cuOCxPrjf=+qKzDLXCDT8KOsdFdes=O-Ujr1TR2SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56EAED0C.9080205@gmail.com> <56EAEDB8.4000305@gmail.com>
 <CAB63Y-fUpJHS4t87C+FUP9dvj9V_-AAHB32Py7q_d+Yka_J_ig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALGG8z0q9cuOCxPrjf=+qKzDLXCDT8KOsdFdes=O-Ujr1TR2SA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:37:06 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAB63Y-fN2usHQvTaiaWaHDGqWKcyU1+ZTz4zAp+a=__RW2AoWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: wicket git commit: Update license information
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.

>> 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).

>> 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!

Martijn

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