On 6/8/2010 1:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Good point. A little more thought:
The distinction here is *how* we generate the output, rather than what
the output needs upon use. A similar situation is seen in the
autotools. Those are GPL'd, but they state "the output from these
tools is not required to follow the GPL license" (or something like
that).
Our PHP and Java output can be used under those systems in a similar
fashion. We've never really need/bothered to clarify that usage
scenario since the ALv2 is so easygoing that nobody has asked (afaik).
So now the question is: do the C bindings geneation require Thrift
itself to link against Glib? Or is Glib only required for the
resulting generated code?
The generation of the bindings is done from the C++ codegen and doesn't
require GLib. However, compiling libthriftc (the runtime library) does
require GLib, since the generated code extends some of the base classes
in there. Although the runtime is only required at link time for thrift
users compiling their generated code.
Cheers,
-g
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 23:50, Michael Lum<michael....@openx.org> wrote:
How does the Apache license work with Java and PHP for Thrift? Both of
those runtimes have licenses that I didn't see on the 3rd party list, yet
they are required to use the Thrift bindings for those languages.
On 6/7/2010 5:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote:
It's used for collections, since none exist in c.
Can it be included under contrib?
Thanks.
-Jake
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Greg Stein<gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah... it means that somebody downloading Thrift, expecting just
Apache-licensed code is gonna get surprised to also have to include
LGPL'd code. That's why we don't allow... no surprises for the user.
What features of Glib are needed by this implementation? (I can't tell
since it isn't in svn...)
Cheers,
-g
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 20:40, Jake Luciani<jak...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since Glib is LGPL I think there is an issue including this dependency
on
thrift.
Can any PMC folks comment if this contribution is going to be possible
to
include?
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
-Jake
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:08 PM, David Reiss<dre...@facebook.com> wrote:
- should I attach this stuff to THRIFT-582 as a massive patch?
not
sure how well that would work, as there will still be a lot of
future
updates. I'm happy to just continue to work on github, or use
something
else if there are suggestions.
Yes, you should attach a massive patch, since that is the easiest way
for
us to document the history of the code. Keeping an active branch on
github
is also good to allow more detailed analysis of the development
process.
Should we do that now, or later, once the server implementation is
complete and the tests have full code coverage?
Either.
