Thanks for addressing that swiftly Emmanuel. This addresses my concerns.
Get Outlook for Android
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:19 PM +0100, "Emmanuel Hugonnet"
wrote:
Yes, all fixed
And also i review a PR with wrong license headers
Cheers
Emmanuel
On 08/06/2019 23:30,
The LICENSE file is for the distribution contents, which in case of
the source release distribution means source files, but in case of a
convience binary distribution means it also includes distributed
dependencies.
It is typical to include (/reference an included file for) the
dependency
Yes, all fixed
And also i review a PR with wrong license headers
Cheers
Emmanuel
On 08/06/2019 23:30, michael.andre.pea...@me.com.INVALID wrote:
> Would that also address the other rat failures that Robbie found?
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:44 PM
Hey Robbie - the LICENSE file is the license for the project itself, not
dependencies. See http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
Art
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 2:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3 are considered Category X
>
Would that also address the other rat failures that Robbie found?
Get Outlook for Android
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:44 PM +0100, "Emmanuel Hugonnet"
wrote:
Hello,
I've sent the PR https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/pull/46 and I'll try
to have it merged with a
Hello,
I've sent the PR https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/pull/46 and I'll try
to have it merged with a release today.
Cheers,
Emmanuel
On 07/06/2019 11:53, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> Here is the RAT output for wildfly-commons 1.5.1.Final (version used
> in Artemis), from adding the RAT
Here is the RAT output for wildfly-commons 1.5.1.Final (version used
in Artemis), from adding the RAT plugin and running "mvn
apache-rat:check" on the module:
https://paste.apache.org/BzlS
16 files were flagged unknown, 15 of which just have no header (5 look
like just empty build marker files),
GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3 are considered Category X
(https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x) and so files under
these would not typically be 'included' in an Apache project, which is
to say we could not distribute them in a source release or any related
binary convenience artifacts.
That
A specific source file being under a different licence does not
necessarily mean the whole project has to be treated as such. It may
mean parts of it do. It can also depend on what parts of the project
are used whether there is any impact to a particular use case.
I would certainly agree the file
WildFly is not the parent project of wildfly-commons, it is just hosted on the
same repository.
The jbpss-parent pom and wildfly-commons are under ASL 2.0
There are 2 files with wrong headers for which I'm going to submit a PR and ask
for a release.
Cheers,
Emmanuel
On 06/06/2019 22:11,
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 7:21 PM Arthur Naseef wrote:
> Looking for clarification here. Our projects can depend on LGPL'ed
> dependencies, right? Here is my understanding...
>
> LGPL is not GPL, so using it as a library in our project should not force
> the license on our software - i.e. we can
Looking for clarification here. Our projects can depend on LGPL'ed
dependencies, right? Here is my understanding...
LGPL is not GPL, so using it as a library in our project should not force
the license on our software - i.e. we can still release under the Apache
License. We do need to include
The file you referenced [1] is just a test and isn't distributed so it's
not in the jar of our dependency. My guess is that it was a mistake and
they can send a commit to re-license the file with ASL 2.
I still don't see a problem, but it's worth checking all the files.
Justin
[1]
I haven’t checked all the files, i don’t have time. But simply the parent
wildfly project is LPGL and I’ve found one file with LGPL, this is a concern,
and going forwards this is risky as they may move more files from Wildfly
project into it.
> On 6 Jun 2019, at 21:10, Michael André Pearce
>
There is a class in there which was taken from wildfly but keeps its gnu
license (as it has to)
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/blob/d8397e1174a193aaab5db510da514f6039be6742/src/test/java/org/wildfly/common/string/CompositeCharSequenceTestCase.java
As such even so they declare it
This was the dependency added:
org.wildfly.common
wildfly-common
Wildfly Common is ASL 2. See
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/blob/master/LICENSE.
I could see your point if a dependency on org.wildfly:wildfly-parent was
added as that is LGPL as you
Wildfly project:
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> On 6 Jun 2019, at 21:01, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> Are you sure about that? Wildfly Common is ASL 2. See
> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:47 PM Michael André
Are you sure about that? Wildfly Common is ASL 2. See
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common.
Justin
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:47 PM Michael André Pearce
wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> It’s a category x, in my understanding.
>
> > On 6 Jun 2019, at 20:46, Michael
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
It’s a category x, in my understanding.
> On 6 Jun 2019, at 20:46, Michael André Pearce
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> It seems https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2661 introduced an
> LPGL dependency into ActiveMQ Artemis.
>
> Can we please
Hi All,
It seems https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2661 introduced an
LPGL dependency into ActiveMQ Artemis.
Can we please revert this.
Thanks
Mike
20 matches
Mail list logo
