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 08:13:49 GMT
>
> In the link your shared, there is this
> > For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
> for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
> You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.


This is just the content of LGPL, so we are still talking about LGPL. I
understand the LPGL is under category X and I am not going to change that.

If that possible, week don’t depend on this in runtime? Dynamic links are
> same as Java dependency, which should not be allowed.

IMHO, I think they are actually different. There is a very good chance for
any serious C/C++ program dynamically linking to Glibc, which is under
LGPL. A simple *malloc *(included in Glibc) in any C/C++ program will cause
you have a dynamic link to LGPL library.

Best Regards,
York Shen

申远

在 2019年6月14日,16:03,Sheng Wu <wu.sheng.841108@gmail.com> 写道:

Hi,

In the link your shared, there is this

For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for
a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You
must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.


This is not compatible with our Apache 2.0 and Apache public good goal.
Apache software should allow all users to use as their wish, even don’t
open source again, sell the fork/mutation versions as they will.

LGPL has been discussed many times, but that is not the only concern here.

If that possible, week don’t depend on this in runtime? Dynamic links are
same as Java dependency, which should not be allowed.

This is my personal perspective only.

Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin



在 2019年6月14日,下午3:48,申远 <shenyuancs@gmail.com> 写道:

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