www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephan Ewen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-340) Is weak copyleft (MPL, CDDL) compatible with shading?
Date Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:53:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16205122#comment-16205122

Stephan Ewen commented on LEGAL-340:

(edit: removed LGPL from the samples, because LGPL is by itself incompatible with ASL 2)

> Is weak copyleft (MPL, CDDL) compatible with shading?
> -----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-340
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-340
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stephan Ewen
> The general idea behind most weak copyleft licenses (like MPL, CDDL, etc) is that one
can link (or dynamically link) the binary artifacts, but any use and modification of the source
code triggers the copyleft clauses.
> I am wondering how that relates to building fat jars and especially to shading and relocation
of classes, as done by the Maven Shade Plugin.
> This could be viewed as more than linking - it is in some sense a change of the binary
artifacts, even though it does not change any functionality/behavior or create any new behavior,
but simply changes the namespace of the artifact (or parts of it).
> Is there any definitive statement on the situation? Having such a statement would also
be very interesting also for downstream consumers of ASF projects, when they vet the project.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message