My "degree of dependence" phrase is a summarization of the key point
at the link you cited,
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
Let me paste that text here, with our specific terms inserted [in brackets]:
--- start of quote ---
Can Apache projects [e.g. Tapestry Project] rely on components [e.g.
Hibernate] whose licensing affects the Apache product [e.g. Tapestry]?
Apache projects [Tapestry Project] cannot distribute any such
components [Hibernate]. However, if the component [Hibernate] is only
needed for optional features, a project [Tapestry Project] can provide
the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
non-included work [Hibernate]. Optional means that the component
[Hibernate] is not required for standard use of the product [Tapestry]
or for the product [Tapestry] to achieve a desirable level of quality.
The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
"Will the majority of users want to use my product [Tapestry]
without adding the optional components [Hibernate]?"
--- end of quote ---
When I read it that way I don't see any problem. Remember, "component"
in that text refers to Hibernate, *NOT* Tapestry-hibernate.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27.09.2012 12:58, Bob Harner wrote:
>> I think you might be over-thinking this. By your interpretation, we can't
>> distribute the tapestry-hibernate module source because of its high degree
>> of dependence on a 3rd party LGPL-licensed software. But then we *could*
>> distribute that same code if we moved it into Tapestry-core (because
>> Tapestry-core *doesn't* have a high degree of dependence on Hibernate. That
>> strikes me as bizarre.
>
> Where did I say anything about "degree of dependence"? The policy is quite
> simple: No GPL- and
> LGPL-depdendent components in your distribution. But if you absolutely want
> to have such a
> component, make it optional and provide the users with instructions on how to
> obtain it but don't
> put it into your distribution.
>
>>
>> I'd bet lots of other Apache projects are distributing such integration
>> modules and not losing sleep over it.
>
> They probably should because they run the risk of having their whole product
> infected by the license
> of the optional component. By factoring out the integration code this risk is
> mitigated. And yes,
> even the LGPL is copyleft in some cases.
>
> It's definitely something we should discuss.
>
> Uli
>
>> On Sep 27, 2012 5:25 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I just reviewed the ASFs policy on including/linkting to software with
>>> incompatible licenses (e.g. GPL/LGPL) [1]. If my reading is right, we are
>>> OK to do that as long as the components depending on incompatible stuff
>>> are not part of our official distribution. So a binary tapestry-hibernate
>>> jar is OK since the binaries are not part of our official distribution,
>>> only the source is. This means however, that we are not allowed to include
>>> sources for modules that depend on software with incompatible licenses in
>>> our official distribution, which we are currently doing, e.g. with
>>> tapestry-hibernate.
>>>
>>> What we need to do is
>>>
>>> 1. check the licenses of all dependencies and see if they are incompatible
>>> to the ASL
>>> 2. remove the affected modules from the source distribution and replace
>>> them with instructions on how to obtain them
>>>
>>> Uli
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
