> > But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime". What do you > mean by that? Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD? Or are you using > WebCore or JavaScriptCore?
According to the document, "WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here." [1] and Weex just has a dynamic link to the shared library of WebKit. IMO, the license of Webkit is really a mess, I really don't know whether Weex will invoke LGPL part of Webkit at runtime, or there is a call chain will will lead to LGPL code eventually, like Weex.apiA-> Webkit.BSD.apiA -> Webkit.BSD.apiB -> Webkit.LGPL.apiC But what I do know is that all of the header files of a certain directory [2] in Webkit are under BSD License. And after some major change, Weex could just import the header file I mentioned at compiling stage, though at runtime Weex has to dynamic link to the shared library of Webkit as before. As for glibc(sorry for my misspelling, it's not glic, it's glibc), which is also under LGPL license, any serious program could invoke the glibc by simply a *malloc* function in a *.c file. I don't see any difference there between Weex using Webkit and any other C program using glibc. [1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ [2] https://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/releases/WebKitGTK/webkit-2.17.4/Source/JavaScriptCore/API/ Best Regards, YorkShen 申远 Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> 于2019年6月11日周二 下午6:39写道： > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:01 PM York Shen <shenyua...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Weex just copied about the shared library and 1500 header file from > Webkit > > which is a mixture of BSD and LGPL license, and 150 of them are under > LGPL > > license. Though those files are just header files ( .h files), and Weex > > dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit. I am still not sure > whether > > this is a violation of ASF's license policy. If this is not allowed by > > ASF’s policy, we can cut down the header files to 50 and all of the files > > are under BSD license by a major change. After the change, we still need > to > > dynamic link to the Webkit which is still a mixture of LGPL and BSD > license > > at runtime. But any serious programs on Linux at runtime have to link to > > glic which is also under LGPL license, we don’t think linking a LGPL > share > > library at runtime is a problem here. > > > > If it is possible for your end user to replace your runtime dependencies > with component which is ALv2-licensed (or compatible), then that is an > allowed dependency. Otherwise, unfortunately, it is not. The issue is > that we at the ASF want to keep the downstream consumers of our code "safe" > from viral licenses. While it is true that LGPL is less viral than GPL, it > is nonetheless a so-called Category X license. From your text above, I > suspect that this is not an allowed dependency. > > https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > > What makes GLIC different is that there are other c-runtime implementations > out there, so users of our project aren't required to use that particular > implementation. (JPA -> OpenJPA/Hibernate is another example of an > application of this principle.) > > But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime". What do you > mean by that? Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD? Or are you using > WebCore or JavaScriptCore? > > Best, > Myrle >
