On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:24 PM Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I think the current policy is not that hard to understand. > > It basically says that we cannot redistribute category x licensed bits. > Check. > There's a difference between depend on and distribute with. I'm inclined to say that the libaio situation is similar to relying on bash, GPL software. It's something the OS provides. No one's distributing it, and the library leveraged by Artemis is an Apache V2 licensed piece of software derived from the LGPL library. But honestly, even PMC/member discussions are just speculative. The definitive answer comes from legal. I'm unable to find anything on the legal tracker for "libaio" or "hornetq" so I'm not sure where those discussions occurred. I can search their emails next. John > > Using the LGPL licensed libaio does not require us to change our license. > Check. > > So we are working in a scenario similar to what is described in the "DOES > IT MATTER WHAT PLATFORM AN APACHE PRODUCT IS CREATED TO WORK WITH?" Section > of > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > Libaio is a platform API that we use if it's available. > > > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > Are you referring to the bin or src distribution? > > > > Kind of both… > > > > By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case. > > The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly > > run the “make” or whatever to build the binary. It’s an explicit choice > > they make. Thus, I’m completely OK with that now. > > > > > > The bin distribution is still an issue. If the default was to not use > > the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable > it > > or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be OK > > there as well. The new wording on the legal pages is completely > > confusing. The original suggested wording in: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54 > > makes so much more sense: > > > > "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that > > are not enabled by default.” > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker > > “out > > >> of the box”, does it use libaio or not? If I specifically have to > > >> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable > > use > > >> if the LGPL library, then fine. However, if it’s something that > > occurs > > >> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s > > occurring, > > >> then I have a major problem with it. It needs to be something that > the > > >> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use. > > >> > > >> Dan > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic < > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation > > >>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open > a > > >>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was > > >>> something that was fixed now. > > >>> > > >>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic > > >>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or > > >>> gcc. > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic > > >>> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament < > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ > legal > > >>>>> discuss? If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release, > > >> would > > >>>>> be good to at least start the discussion. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that > email > > >>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok > > >>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their > > >>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we > had > > >>>> asked before. > > >>>> > > >>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as > > >>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this > thread. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Clebert Suconic > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Daniel Kulp > > >> [email protected] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog > > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > [email protected] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > > > > -- > Hiram Chirino > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >
