incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LGPL dependency
Date Tue, 02 Jul 2019 07:20:52 GMT
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