1 Aug
2012
1 Aug
'12
10:22 a.m.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On 07/30/2012 06:35 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
We don't actually modify/repackage Jython in any way the last version
is even in Maven central. For Pygments it's basically just a
conversion from egg to jar package to be recognized by Maven and
loaded in the classloader so we don't really modify much either.
My understanding is this does not affect the licensing of XWiki any more
than the GPL packages in Debian affect the LGPL packages because they are on
the same installer disk.
The LGPL originated from the C compiling and linking mechanism where a
header file was prepended to the .c file in the compiling cycle, making what
was arguably a derived work. While the GPL is fuzzy about it, the LGPL
explicitly says this is ok.
I am not aware of any claims arising from using GPL licensed .jar files
being included in a .zip distribution.
The LGPL license file only applies to the XWiki codebase itself, we use
libraries which are licensed under a range of different licenses including
Apache and BSD like licenses.
That said, we do not use GPL'd libraries so this is something which will
have to be fixed, thanks for letting us know.
I don't agree here, but when it comes to licenses nobody can be sure; even
judges contradict each other.
My understanding is that GPL does disperse through jars used in the same
application. They're not just individual programs that happen to sit in the
same zip, they are used together in the same application, with direct calls
from one class to another.
"Derivative work" doesn't refer to [intermediary] source code alone (the
.h
being copied into the .c that uses it), it refers to end programs as a
whole, since the *functionality* of a library is present in the end program.
The fact that we use non-xGPL libraries doesn't mean that we can use any
library because the licenses don't interfere with each other. It means that
Apache and BSD licenses can be used within a LGPL project, because they
permit relicensing. This means that we're not using the Apache-licensed
Lucene library, we're using the LGPL-licensed Lucene library derived from
the Apache-licensed Lucene library. This works because:
- ASL/BSD/MIT allow relicensing (they are compatible with the xGPL)
- LGPL is stronger than ASL/BSD, so by relicensing we're only adding
restrictions, not removing any
- Since we don't actually make any changes to these libraries, we don't have
to provide any source code other than what's already offered by the official
code repositories of those libraries, so the fact that we're relicensing
doesn't have any real implications
This makes me wonder what happens with the libraries that we do
modify/repackage, like Pygments and Jython.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne