Me too, on first read. Well worth the discussion, though. On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm, yes. Makes sense if read that way. I assumed component = > tapestry-hibernate > > Uli > > On 27.09.2012 16:25, Bob Harner wrote: >> 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] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
