Guys, If we only link with compiled LGPL library why is it considered unfriendly? As far as I know LGPL allows even commercial application to ship such libraries with them, am I wrong? Why we need all this hustle with downloading scripts?
Sergi 2015-01-28 6:22 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > As Brane mentioned one of the way is to provide a simple helper script that > can be run as a part of the installation and bring the needed binaries > down. > This of course should go with a warning to the user that some non-ASL > friendly > libraries will be downloaded. Having such a script as a part of the source > release is totally acceptable as well ;) > > That seems to be the most appropriate way to go without doing a lot of the > code changes. > > Cos > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:11PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > 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 > > > >
