Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:23 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: Nick Couchman wrote on 4/11/17 10:26 AM: >> Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator >> project, and am developing an extension for the project that has >> dependencies on binaries (JARs

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

Nick Couchman wrote on 4/11/17 10:26 AM: > Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator > project, and am developing an extension for the project that has > dependencies on binaries (JARs via Maven) that are licensed under > Category-X licenses. We've already determined that

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:03 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > The info I provided was based on a discussion on legal, originally carried > over from a discussion on optional dependencies on software licensed under > the Amazon Software License - >

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper > wrote: > > > > > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes > > hold upon linking (at build time), not upon

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM Mike Jumper wrote: > On Apr 11, 2017 17:29, "Niclas Hedhman" wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper > wrote: > > > > > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Apr 11, 2017 17:29, "Niclas Hedhman" wrote: On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper wrote: > > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes > hold upon linking (at build time), not upon referencing the API via

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper wrote: > > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes > hold upon linking (at build time), not upon referencing the API via an > import, include, etc. in the source. > Your understanding is,

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache > License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim > that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache > License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim > that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality to the dependent project... Meaning, if you have an import statement linking your

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:10 AM, John D. Ament wrote: Nick, > In general, the LICENSE and NOTICE refers to the contents of the release > itself.  If you're not bundling any of those outside dependencies, then > there would be nothing to include. Okay, sounds

Re: Help with Dependency Licensing

Nick, In general, the LICENSE and NOTICE refers to the contents of the release itself. If you're not bundling any of those outside dependencies, then there would be nothing to include. Please also note - you can provide a binary release, assuming that the binary release does not package the

Help with Dependency Licensing

Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator project, and am developing an extension for the project that has dependencies on binaries (JARs via Maven) that are licensed under Category-X licenses.  We've already determined that we cannot distribute a binary version of this