On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 21/05/15 00:21, Paul King a écrit : >> On 20/05/2015 5:36 AM, Cédric Champeau wrote: >>> I wanted to check with you what is preventing us from releasing >>> 2.4.4. [...] >> >> I have a question for our mentors around licensing. Just a point of >> clarification >> for the official source distribution zip. We have a number of >> dependencies >> which our build brings in and we have incorporated the appropriate >> license >> information from those dependencies into our LICENSE and NOTICE files. >> I believe this is exactly appropriate for the binary artifacts (jars) our >> build produces and for the convenience binaries we will make available >> (since >> those artifacts contain software in binary form from the respective >> dependency >> projects). This complies with the wording in those licenses similar to: >> >> "... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms ... are permitted >> provided that the following conditions are met: >> * Redistributions of source code must retain the [various license >> information] >> * Redistributions in binary form must retain the [various license >> information]" >> >> In our case it is the binary form that is relevant. All good so far. >> >> The point of clarification is about the source distribution zip itself. >> Take ASM or ANTLR as an example. There is no source or binary artifacts >> from those projects anywhere in our source zip. The build brings down the >> needed binaries at build time which we subsequently bundle into our >> produced binary artifacts. So, back to the wording above, there is >> definitely no "redistribution" of source or binary but the fact that our >> build goes on to incorporate said dependencies, does that count as "use"? >> >> So, should the ASM/ANTLR etc. license info appear in the LICENSE/NOTICE >> files in the root of our source distribution zip? We currently do include >> them but I am conscious of the need to keep those files containing just >> the required information and no more. > > AFAIK, antlr produces Java code that requires a antlr bundle to run : in > this case, you 'use' antlr. > > In other words, if the tool you use generates some Java code (or > anything else) that is not using any part of the tool, then I don't > think you need to retain the license.
This is exactly my understanding as well and something I've seen on all the other projects I've participated. Thanks, Roman.
