I fully agree with Bob's interpretation of this. Integrations to *optional* components have traditionally been ok. I'm sure we can find plenty of examples of this in other projects. For example, OpenMeetings (currently in incubation) is going way, way deeper with their integrations to (L)GPL codebases than our tapestry-hibernate, and there are some interesting cases there if you care to follow.
Kalle On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Bob Harner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
