Hey Robbie - the LICENSE file is the license for the project itself, not dependencies. See http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
Art Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2019, at 2:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3 are considered Category X > (https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x) and so files under > these would not typically be 'included' in an Apache project, which is > to say we could not distribute them in a source release or any related > binary convenience artifacts. > > That said, Category X files are allowed for use with optional > functionality where a user can be instructed how to themselves attain > and use them. There are also some rare cases for specific > purposes/uses (around defacto build tools) where incompatible licenced > files can be included. > > (Aside: LICENCE details would be called out in the LICENCE file, not NOTICE) > > Robbie > >> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 00:21, Arthur Naseef <a...@amlinv.com> wrote: >> >> Looking for clarification here. Our projects can depend on LGPL'ed >> dependencies, right? Here is my understanding... >> >> LGPL is not GPL, so using it as a library in our project should not force >> the license on our software - i.e. we can still release under the Apache >> License. We do need to include a NOTICE file mentioning the dependency and >> its license as part of the release - that's an Apache standard, right? >> >> If this is just a test dependency as @jbertram mentioned, then it's really >> not a problem and doesn't require and NOTICE. >> >> Art >> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 1:17 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> The file you referenced [1] is just a test and isn't distributed so it's >>> not in the jar of our dependency. My guess is that it was a mistake and >>> they can send a commit to re-license the file with ASL 2. >>> >>> I still don't see a problem, but it's worth checking all the files. >>> >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/blob/d8397e1174a193aaab5db510da514f6039be6742/src/test/java/org/wildfly/common/string/CompositeCharSequenceTestCase.java >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:12 PM Michael André Pearce >>> <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I haven’t checked all the files, i don’t have time. But simply the parent >>>> wildfly project is LPGL and I’ve found one file with LGPL, this is a >>>> concern, and going forwards this is risky as they may move more files >>> from >>>> Wildfly project into it. >>>> >>>>> On 6 Jun 2019, at 21:10, Michael André Pearce < >>>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is a class in there which was taken from wildfly but keeps its >>> gnu >>>> license (as it has to) >>>>> >>>> >>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/blob/d8397e1174a193aaab5db510da514f6039be6742/src/test/java/org/wildfly/common/string/CompositeCharSequenceTestCase.java >>>>> >>>>> As such even so they declare it Apache, it isn’t because inside is code >>>> that is LPGL from wildly. >>>>> >>>>>> On 6 Jun 2019, at 21:06, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This was the dependency added: >>>>>> >>>>>> <dependency> >>>>>> <groupId>org.wildfly.common</groupId> >>>>>> <artifactId>wildfly-common</artifactId> >>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wildfly Common is ASL 2. See >>>>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/blob/master/LICENSE. >>>>>> >>>>>> I could see your point if a dependency on org.wildfly:wildfly-parent >>> was >>>>>> added as that is LGPL as you noted. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point I don't see a problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Justin >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:02 PM Michael André Pearce >>>>>> <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wildfly project: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6 Jun 2019, at 21:01, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you sure about that? Wildfly Common is ASL 2. See >>>>>>>> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:47 PM Michael André Pearce >>>>>>>> <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It’s a category x, in my understanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jun 2019, at 20:46, Michael André Pearce < >>>>>>>>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2661 >>>>>>>>> introduced an LPGL dependency into ActiveMQ Artemis. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can we please revert this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
