On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/30/2012 06:35 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: >> >> 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.
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. > > > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
