Why create a GitHub repos if you can do them at the ASF? If the libraries are optional, and they do not include LGPL components, but only use them at compile/run time, then there appears to be no reason why we can't just ask Infra for metamodel-extras.git or whatever! :)
On 9 December 2013 22:05, Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't suggest that we would bundle this with Apache MetaModel at all. > Rather I imagine we'll simply make a separate project on GitHub or so, > called "MetaModel extras" which can contain these LGPL modules. They are > entirely working as add-ons anyway, so there is a clean one-way dependency. > > > 2013/12/7 Noah Slater <[email protected]> > >> Thanks! >> >> This thread is relevant: >> >> >> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL+binary#query:list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss%20LGPL%20binary+page:5+mid:ye6sju2gbzt25dnp+state:results >> >> And so is this: >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options >> >> My take is: >> >> We can write against LGPL libraries, and require the user to install >> those libraries themselves, as long as those bits of the product are >> entirely optional. >> >> We cannot bundle LGPL libraries in a binary package unless we request >> an exemption. >> >> On 7 December 2013 13:25, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> We can publish binary packages that include LGPL components, as long >> >> as we communicate this very precisely. >> >> >> >> We can't include LGPL in a source release, but we might be able to >> >> host a Git repository on ASF infra that includes LGPL source. As long >> >> as we do not make any source releases from it. But I am not sure on >> >> this point. A quick note to legal-discuss@ would clear this up. If >> >> it's not a good idea, then yes, a Github repository would work. >> >> >> > >> > AIUI, this is not a valid option. I believe the recommended option is to >> > host these externally and manage them outside of the Apache community. I >> > suggest reviewing the legal-discuss@ list archives and >> > general@incubatorarchives, as this is not the first time this issue >> > has arisen. >> > >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+LGPL >> > http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.legal-discuss+LGPL >> > >> > >> >> On 22 November 2013 11:52, Kasper Sørensen >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> >> > >> >> > At Human Inference (and in the old eobjects.org community of >> MetaModel) >> >> we >> >> > have a number of small projects/modules that provide the capability of >> >> > Apache MetaModel to connect to these additional datastore types: >> >> > >> >> > * SAS datasets (.sas7bdat files) >> >> > * dBase databases (.dbf files) >> >> > * MS Access databases >> >> > >> >> > For various reasons, these modules could not be Apache licensed, so >> they >> >> > have to live on somewhere else with the LGPL license. Right now >> they're >> >> > individually available at different SVN locations etc. etc... I would >> >> like >> >> > to see if we can clean that up a bit and make a package available >> with a >> >> > name like "MetaModel extras". >> >> > >> >> > Obviously without any commitment from the Apache community, I wanted >> to >> >> ask >> >> > if anyone had any preference as to where and how we publish these >> >> modules. >> >> > I am thinking we might do something like putting them on GitHub, and >> for >> >> > now still use package name and Maven group id like "org.eobjects....". >> >> > >> >> > Kind regards, >> >> > Kasper >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Noah Slater >> >> https://twitter.com/nslater >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater >> -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
