On 28.01.2015 08:31, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > 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?
It's one thing to "ship" and quite another to "redistribute." The redistribution rights granted by LGPL are quite a bit more constrained than those granted by ALv2. We cannot ship sources with LGPL components and say they can be redistributed under ALv2; that simply does not work. It's similar with binaries. A commercial license typically does not allow redistribution at all, so that part of LGPL never gets involved in that case. -- Brane > 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 >>>>
