Sergi, I also think this is OK form Apache stand point.
However, I still don't like bundling TPS, licensed under LGPL, together with H2, licensed under EPL, as one dependency. This would imply that our users who choose to use only H2 indexing under EPL license, now have to also agree to LGPL license because of TPS. It does not make sense. We should move TPS into a separate dependency module which will be licensed under LGPL. I filed a ticket for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-140 . We can continue this discussion there. D. D. On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27.01.2015 08:57, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > > Mentors, > > > > We have a LGPL dependency (we don't copy their code, only link with their > > library). As far as I know we can ship our Apache 2.0 licensed binary > > distribution with this library included while on the source code level it > > is just a Maven dependency, right? Do we have any restrictions here? I > > currently see none. > > I think we already had this discussion. :) > > Optional dependencies on (L)GPL code are fine. Mandatory dependencies > are not. > > "Optional" implies that we don't bundle the (L)GPL sources, but if the > user downloads them herself (even via a script we provide, or using > Maven or Ivy or similar dependency tracker), they can build a version of > Ignite that uses that code. > > As for binaries: if they include LGPL code, you can no longer say > they're under ALv2, because additional restrictions on distribution > /may/ apply; I'm not quite sure how that goes. If it's at all possible, > I suggest to not bundle LGPL libraries in the binary bundle; let the > user add it and detect its presence at runtime. > > -- Brane >
