Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes, direct or transitive dependencies have no bearing on the > application of the license or ASF policy. > > Remember, the phrasing of the policy is important: "[you may not bundle > any products which are category-X]" (probably a bad time to not quote > directly, but hopefully my point gets across nonetheless). > > The "optional dependencies" is the only relevant caveat here (and I'll > avoid re-hashing in depth as I think it was pretty clear last time). If > the Geo-Indexing module that Rya provides is 'optional', the dependency > is OK, but I believe you still must not bundle it (e.g. uber.jar) in a > release, it would be something users can build themselves if they accept > the terms of the lgpl. > > - Josh > > Aaron D. Mihalik wrote: > > As we discussed before, a direct dependency on a LGPL licensed jar is > > prohibited, but are transitive dependencies prohibited? > > > > For instance, Rya Geoindexing depends on Geomesa (Apache 2.0 licensed) > and > > Geomesa depends on Geotools (LGPL licensed). I believe that we get into > > trouble in Rya Geoindexing for two reasons: > > > > 1. We build an uber jar that contains the Geotools jars. > > 2. The Rya Geoindexing source code directly uses (or "links") to classes > > contained in Geotools. > > > > If we were able to eliminate 1 and 2 (but still have Geomesa and Geotools > > as transitive dependencies), could we include Rya Geoindexing in the > > release? > > > > Thanks, > > Aaron > > >
