incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 申远 <shenyua...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LGPL dependency
Date Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:40:52 GMT
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
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message