The so called Category A licenses are allowed to be included as a
dependency AND/OR in source form of Apache projects, but we must respect
the language of those licenses. MIT is a relatively aligned license, which
in essence differs from ALv2 in the patent clause (IIRC, however IANAL).

There is also a social aspect to expropriating external codebases; If the
authors explicitly wish for the codebase to be placed into PLC4X, then
AFAIU an ICLA is nice, but not required. If the original authors don't want
the fork, ASF has historically followed that even if it legally could fork
it. IF all the authors are onboard for the codebase to come to ASF, then
try to do a "Software Grant" and take it through the Incubator's process of
codebase donations, and TRY to get the authors to change the license to

>From experience, if they have a few hours of time available, most are happy
to do it. If they are strapped on time, someone can have a quick talk with
them, and do the actual work on their behalf. That is also often

// Niclas

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:16 PM Christofer Dutz <>

> Hi Julian,
> It seems the files am have apache headers, but the pom says mit license.
> Perhaps Justin can help us with what's allowed and what's not.
> It would be cool to have it in a location we can update and release it on
> our own. Cause even if the maintainer is accepting PRs, we don't know how
> often he releases.
> We could put it alongside the raw socket stuff.
> It's only one contributor, so he could donate everything without too much
> effort.
> Chris
> Holen Sie sich Outlook für Android<>
> ________________________________
> From: Julian Feinauer <>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:13:33 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: Usage of Netty - JSerialcom-Bridge
> Hi all,
> as we use in our DF1 Code (and also fort he Modbus Code, I think) the
> library: which is
> under netty license.
> But it quite outdated and only “maintained” by one guy.
> I contacted him asking if he accepts PRs and also suggested, that we
> probably move / replicate the code in our code in a tools module (or
> integrate it in the Serial-Netty Stuff somewhere).
> What do you think?
> The best way, if he agrees, would be to have him sign an ICLA and we could
> simply take the code as is and refactor it perhaps a bit and adapt it to
> newer versions.
> Otherwise, I think it will be hard to use this lib and we would need to
> come up with an alternative.
> Julian

Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer - New Energy for Java

Reply via email to