incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: LGPL dependency
Date Sun, 23 Jun 2019 23:32:05 GMT
Lets continue this discussion on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds like
> it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t inspected
> the individual files, but I suspect that the header files are BSD licensed
> to make linking less of a legal headache.
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 07:11, Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Webkit license page https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ says
> > portions licensed under LGPL and BSD licenses.
> >
> > Usually this means it's the user's choice which license to use.
> >
> > We would choose the BSD License for the components that we use.
> >
> > Can you find anywhere a statement that the Webkit.so is licensed only
> > under LGPL?
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:40 AM, 申远 <shenyuancs@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > As mentioned above, Webkit is under dual License(BSD and LPGL) and it's
> > > almost impossible for us to figure out which function is a pure BSD
> > > function. I don't know
> > > Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL will happen
or
> > > not. Perhaps pure BSD header file will lead to pure BSD implementation.
> > > Perhaps?
> > >
> > > As for alternative dependency, it's possible if we make some major
> > changes
> > > to Weex. But convenience binary of each Weex release includes Webkit.so,
> > > how to solve that problem? Maybe publish two convenience binary, one
> > named
> > > Weex_WebKit.aar and the other named Weex_BSDKit.aar ? Not sounds like a
> > > good idea to me.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > YorkShen
> > >
> > > 申远
> > >
> > >
> > > Sheng Wu <wu.sheng.841108@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:23写道:
> > >
> > >> Hi York
> > >>
> > >> I am not a C/C++ coder, so I could be wrong.
> > >>
> > >> But from I saw, Catalog X dependency required is not right. Like Hen
> > said,
> > >> alternative is an option.
> > >>
> > >> Such as
> > >> Today’s another incubating project, ShardingSphere.
> > >> When user wants to MySQL sharing, then they needs to accept MySQL Driver
> > >> license first(or already accepted).
> > >> But user could use ShardingSphere with PostgreSQL JDBC Driver.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sheng Wu
> > >> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 在 2019年6月14日,下午4:15,Hen <bayard@apache.org> 写道:
> > >>>
> > >>> Assuming Weex requires Webkit and is unable to work with an
> > alternative,
> > >>> the issue here is that users of Weex would seem to have to permit
> > reverse
> > >>> engineering in their legal terms. Our position has been that that goes
> > >>> beyond the scope of the Apache 2.0 license and would be an unpleasant
> > >>> surprise for users.
> > >>>
> > >>> (seem to have to  =>  this is how we've discussed the license; an
> > actual
> > >>> court may decide something completely different)
> > >>>
> > >>> Looking at Weex's website's description, it does not seem to be that
a
> > >> user
> > >>> of Weex will already have agreed to the terms of Webkit; thus I believe
> > >>> they would be unpleasantly surprised.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hen
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 <shenyuancs@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of our
> > >>>> dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied from
> > >> Webkit
> > >>>> is actually under LGPL license(Category X) and our license format
> > tools
> > >>>> changed the license header of these files to Apache v2 incorrectly.
> > I'd
> > >>>> like to hear advice from incubator that whether our actions below
> > would
> > >> fix
> > >>>> the Category X issue.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> First of all, License for Webkit is complicated, as it's said that
> > >> "WebKit
> > >>>> is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and
BSD
> > >>>> licenses available here." [1].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now, Weex includes 1500 header files( .h files) from Webkit at
> > compiling
> > >>>> stage and around 150 of the are under BSD License. At runtime,
Weex
> > will
> > >>>> dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> After some major change, Weex could just include around 50 headers(.h
> > >>>> files) at compiling stage and all of them are under BSD license.
At
> > >>>> runtime, Weex still needs to dynamic links to the shared library
of
> > >> Webkit
> > >>>> as before.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As Webkit is under dual license, and it's almost impossible for
us to
> > >>>> figure out whether there is an function call chain like
> > >>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL.apiD.
I'd
> > like
> > >> to
> > >>>> know our proposed change is enough to fix the Category X dependency.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>> YorkShen
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 申远
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > clr@apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message