On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache > License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim > that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality to the > dependent project... Meaning, if you have an import statement linking your > code to such dependency, there is legal uncertainty whether the entire > project must be under the copyleft license in question. FSF certainly > thinks so, and VP Legal has in the past concluded that we should have the > same stance. > > So when is the optional Cat X dependency acceptable? > > Ugh. I hit send too soon. Basically, what we came up with was that a Cat-X dependency was OK when it was based on some common interface, and never bundled within the application. Hibernate was an example that came up - I can provide a library that ships with integration for hibernate, based on the JPA specification (which is Cat-B or Cat-A). > For instance, an acceptably licensed API specification is what our project > depend on, and some runtime mechanism (such as Java Service Loader or > Spring Dependency Injection) make that available. Without this indirection, > we ain't allowed to have dependency on Cat X for Java (and other > circumstances). > > > HTH > Niclas > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Nick Couchman < > nick.couch...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator project, > > and am developing an extension for the project that has dependencies on > > binaries (JARs via Maven) that are licensed under Category-X licenses. > > We've already determined that we cannot distribute a binary version of > this > > extension, but, since it is an extension (and not core to the > functionality > > of the product), we should be able to distribute the source code with > build > > instructions for the users. > > The question I have is how we should deal with license bundling in this > > scenario? In the rest of this project, including other extensions, we > > bundle a src/licenses directory that has all of the dependency licenses > for > > the extension. When the binary is built, a resulting file has not only > the > > binary for the extension, but also all of the dependency licenses. Since > > we're not distributing a binary, is there any reason/need for us to > package > > up dependency licenses? > > Let me know if this needs more clarification - I know this might be a bit > > vague, but I'm in new territory, here, and am happy to provide any > further > > information that might help someone help me :-). > > Thanks,Nick > > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >
