incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From York Shen <shenyua...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LGPL dependency
Date Tue, 02 Jul 2019 08:08:14 GMT
Thanks for your supporting.

I will bring it to general@incubator when vote passed in weex@dev

Best Regards,
York Shen

申远

> 在 2019年7月2日,15:20,Myrle Krantz <myrle@apache.org> 写道:
> 
> Hey Jim,
> 
> Thank you for asking.  : o)  Weex is still cutting the release.  It's
> precisely because this can be time-consuming that they asked before they
> started.  They'll bring it for a vote once they have it.
> 
> Best,
> Myrle
> 
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:19 PM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Myrle, did you get all you needed? Enough votes and all to get the release
>> unblocked?
>> 
>>> On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Myrle Krantz <myrle@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've said it on dev@weex, and on private@incubator, but I wanted to make
>>> sure and say it here too.  Weex should cut the release.  We'll figure out
>>> the rest later.  The straw poll on private@incubator also confirms: you
>>> have my support and the support of many of the mentors in the
>> incubator.  I
>>> apologize for us blocking you for so long.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Myrle Krantz
>>> PMC Member, Apache Incubator
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:06 AM 申远 <shenyuancs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It looks like we have got result[1] from Legal VP, I will bring it here
>> now
>>>> 
>>>>  1. It's fine if Weex only could include header files under 2-clause
>> BSD
>>>>  license from Webkit at compiling time and has a dynamic link to
>>>> Webkit.so
>>>>  at runtime.
>>>>  2. It's recommended that excluding Webkit.so from Weex convenience
>>>>  library. Users would include the code snippet below to include both
>> weex
>>>>  and webkit.
>>>> 
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> 
>>>>   <artifactId>weex_sdk</artifactId>
>>>> 
>>>> </dependency>
>>>> 
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> 
>>>>   <artifactId>webkit</artifactId>
>>>> 
>>>> </dependency>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The following is what I need to consult from Incubator:
>>>> 
>>>> Google will ban all apps without 64 bit published in Google Play from
>> 1st,
>>>> August, 2019 [1]. Though it's a good idea of excluding Webkit.so from
>>>> convenience library of Weex, Weex community needs to publish next
>> release
>>>> with 64-bit support ASAP to give users enough time to upgrade Weex. I'd
>>>> like to remain webkit.so in convenience library of Weex only for next
>>>> release.
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
>>>> [2]
>> https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> YorkShen
>>>> 
>>>> 申远
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> 于2019年6月24日周一 上午7:32写道:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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