Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes, direct or transitive dependencies have no bearing on the
> application of the license or ASF policy.
> Remember, the phrasing of the policy is important: "[you may not bundle
> any products which are category-X]" (probably a bad time to not quote
> directly, but hopefully my point gets across nonetheless).
> The "optional dependencies" is the only relevant caveat here (and I'll
> avoid re-hashing in depth as I think it was pretty clear last time). If
> the Geo-Indexing module that Rya provides is 'optional', the dependency
> is OK, but I believe you still must not bundle it (e.g. uber.jar) in a
> release, it would be something users can build themselves if they accept
> the terms of the lgpl.
> - Josh
> Aaron D. Mihalik wrote:
> > As we discussed before, a direct dependency on a LGPL licensed jar is
> > prohibited, but are transitive dependencies prohibited?
> > For instance, Rya Geoindexing depends on Geomesa (Apache 2.0 licensed)
> > Geomesa depends on Geotools (LGPL licensed). I believe that we get into
> > trouble in Rya Geoindexing for two reasons:
> > 1. We build an uber jar that contains the Geotools jars.
> > 2. The Rya Geoindexing source code directly uses (or "links") to classes
> > contained in Geotools.
> > If we were able to eliminate 1 and 2 (but still have Geomesa and Geotools
> > as transitive dependencies), could we include Rya Geoindexing in the
> > release?
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron