On Jan 22, 2008 10:56 AM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2008 5:24 AM, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 2008 10:11 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2008 11:45 PM, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 2008 5:26 AM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I know LGPL is somewhat an old topic, but it's still puzzling me, so > > > > > please bear with me a little bit. :) > > > > > > > > > > I am forwarding this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED] just to be sure and > > > > > find out what MINA PMC has to do with the RXTX dependency. Here's > > > > > some background: > > > > > > > > > > * One of MINA's submodule depends on RXTX library > > > > > (http://www.rxtx.org/). > > > > > * RXTX is LGPL'd with an exception clause. > > > > > (http://users.frii.com/jarvi/rxtx/license.html) > > > > > * We are using Maven so the generated tarball doesn't contain any RXTX > > > > > source code or binary (i.e. JAR). > > > > > * However, Maven 2 fetches the RXTX binary automatically when a user > > > > > enters 'mvn compile' command. > > > > > * We didn't tag any official release or publish any distributions yet. > > > > > (we have some Maven snapshots though) > > > > > * Another worthwhile read: http://tinyurl.com/28hmfj > > > > > > > > Regarding that last link, that resolution was tabled. What it > > > > eventually evolved into can be found here: > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html > > > > > > > > > Now the somewhat overlapping questions... > > > > > > > > > > 1) Do we need to move our submodule outside of the ASF or not? > > > > > 2) Is there any way to distribute the submodule with the official MINA > > > > > release as of now? > > > > > > > > Two questions first: > > > > 1) Can Mina meaningfully operate, possibly with a only a subset of > > > > functionality, without the presence of this dependency? > > > > > > Yes. The functionality that depends on RXTX is completely optional. > > > > > > > 2) Does this submodule "communicate with RXTX solely through the Sun > > > > Microsytems [sice] CommAPI interface version 2"? > > > > > > No, it directly imports gnu.* package. > > > > What a pity, as this would have changed the answer. But given the > > answers above, the answers to your two questions relative to the > > current draft ASF Third Party Licensing policy is > > > > > > > 1) Do we need to move our submodule outside of the ASF or not? > > > > Yes. > > Why again? > > I've not figured out what differences there are between the rubys > 3rdparty and the cliffs one, but I thought it was fine for code to > depend on LGPL as it did not make our code LGPL.
I could quote from Cliff's draft, or you can simply read for yourself: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-lgpl > > > > > 2) Is there any way to distribute the submodule with the official MINA > > > > > release as of now? > > > > Not directly. See the bullets relating to excluded licenses in the > > section on Optional Add-ons in the following web page: > > > > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#options-optional > > ? Again, I thought we could distribute our submodule, but not the LGPL > code it depends on. To get that optional feature to work, the user > would have to manually find the LGPL work (we'll supply a link) and go > get it before they have that feature. Again, Cliff's words: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-optional Tell me if you read them differently than I do, or have suggestions on how the draft should change. > Hen - Sam Ruby
