On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 07:39, William Guo <gu...@apache.org> wrote: > that means if we cannot have category X dependencies in our source release, > but for category B, since we don't bundled in our source release, so it is > fine.
That’s correct. > > Correct me if I am wrong. > > Thanks, > William > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 April 2018 at 03:37, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > > > I just have different idea about your your explanation. > > > > > > If my code has the compile dependency of the JSON library, as the JSON > > > library code is not bundled in the source code. > > > I don't think we should add the License of JSON library into my License > > > file. > > > > > > > Right. The source license file only applies to the source code that you > > directly include in the distribution artifact. Hence why the binaries > here > > have a different license because they embed several 3rd party > dependencies > > with different licenses or notices to include. Some licenses have > different > > rules regarding source distribution versus binary distribution (these > > generally revolve around where and how to attribute the copyright > holders). > > > > > > > If we use the LGPL license jar library in the test. > > > As this LGPL jar is not bundled in our source or binary release. we > don't > > > need to update our License and Notice file for it. > > > > > > > That's my understanding. Essentially, any components that depend on LGPL > > code or similar need to be optional. > > > > As for license categories (which is relevant to this discussion in > > general), category A are all good for source and binary distribution, > > category B licenses can generally be used in binary distributions but not > > source distributions, and category X licenses cannot be included in > source > > or binary distributions. Category X licensed software can be used in > > limited cases, but it can't be required for using the software. For > > example, maybe you have a component that integrates with some GPL > component > > upstream. Provided you were legally able to write your component under > ALv2 > > in the first place, then said component could be distributed as an > optional > > component with instructions on installing the third party software. < > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional> > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>