On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 8:50 PM Junchao Chen <jucc...@ucdavis.edu.invalid> wrote:
> hi Justin, > > I have removed all the related code from the source files, and there are no > GPL dependencies there. > Those dependencies are an optional setting in our project, it is not > necessary. > Just to put it out there - I think the license listing for RocksDB is wrong. It's a dual licensed piece of software (GPLv2 + Apache License V2). Similar for zstd, it's a dual license BSD-3 and GPLv2. So I suspect the real issue is that you mislabeled it as GPLv2 but you actually wanted to label them under the permissive license we can use. And keep in mind, your source license file should represent the contents of your source release. If you bring in dependencies when building, you should reference those separately, likely under a binary release. Just wondering, but who are your mentors? What was their feedback on the release? They should be able to help you sort this out. > > Thanks, > junchao > > On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 5:36 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > HI, > > > > > Thanks for letting me know. > > > I have removed those dependencies. > > > > What goes in the license file is any 3rd party licenses that are included > > in the source release, not those that are dependencies. But unless it is > > optional, you also can’t have any GPL dependencies. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
