I pushed the fix - now LGPL dependencies are excluded by default. I added commands for both build options to DEVNOTES (Dima, please review the text and fix if you think it's needed).
-- Val On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Understood. Valentin, can you please turn the lgpl flag off by default? > > D. > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 08:23PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > > On 28.03.2015 15:51, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 28.03.2015 06:41, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > > >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:32PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > >>>> (restarting a new vote for 1.0.0 after having fixed the LGPL issue > > that > > > >> was > > > >>>> raised during the previous vote today) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0.0 release candidate to: > > > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got > for > > RC3: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. Added the ability to build a binary ZIP file without LGPL > > > >> dependencies. > > > >>>> 2. Fixed jdk8.backport wrong license issue. > > > >>>> 3. Fixed NOTICE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > > >>>> 4. Fixed LICENSE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> To build a binary release from source run: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> # With LGPL dependencies > > > >>>> mvn clean package -DskipTests > > > >>>> > > > >>>> # Without LGPL dependencies > > > >>>> mvn clean package -DskipTests -P-lgpl,-examples > > > >>> Would it make sense to turn off 'lgpl' by default? Perhaps doesn't > > have > > > >> to be > > > >>> addressed until next release, unless a re-spin will happen. > > > >> These dependencies /have/ to be turned off by default, because > > otherwise > > > >> it's too easy to build binaries that are not ALv2. Especially if > that > > > >> -P-lgpl is not documented anywhere. > > > >> > > > > To my knowledge, the reason why LGPL is not allowed is because of its > > > > redistribution conflicts with ALv2. If users download the source code > > > > without LGPL in it, and then download the binaries for LGPL > > dependencies > > > > themselves during the build, then there is no redistribution of LGPL > > > > occurring and we should be OK. That's why the flag is turned on for > the > > > > users by default. > > > > > > But that's not the point. If someone builds a product using code > > > licensed under ALv2, they're allowed to distribute just the binary of > > > that product to users. If the product also contains LGPL components, > > > that's no longer true; they have to also make available the source code > > > for those components. Depending on the exact version of LGPL (there are > > > at least two of them in common use), there may be other constraints. So > > > including LGPL libraries in the binary build does indeed change the > > > distribution rights for those binaries in non-trivial ways. > > > > You right of course - thanks of re-iterating this again: I totally missed > > the > > point of _implicit_ changes in the distribution rights in this case. > > Hence, it > > would be a disservice to the project user if such thing is possible. > > > > Yes - let's deactivate these profiles by default, hence someone will have > > to > > make an effort to turn them during the build. > > > > Cos > > > > > Open-source licensing is an extremely complex area and I don't pretend > > > to know everything about it, but I do know it's a bad idea to try > > > second-guessing recommendations from people who have spent many years > > > working in the area. > > > > > > > The flag to turn LGPL off is *only* for us, so we can build our own > > > > convenience binary which will be downloadable from the website. This > > binary > > > > cannot and will not have LGPL because of redistribution issues. > > > > > > This assumption is incorrect, as per my comment above. By the principle > > > of least surprise, the default build should create a binary package > that > > > can be distributed under the terms of the ALv2. > > > > > > > Having said that, I simply wanted to explain our reasoning here. If > you > > > > feel strongly about this issue and want us to resubmit the release > for > > a > > > > vote with LGPL turned off by default, we can do that too. > > > > > > It's not about my feeling strongly about anything; it's about an ASF > > > project not misleading our users. > > > > > > -- Brane > > > > > >
