WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds like it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t inspected the individual files, but I suspect that the header files are BSD licensed to make linking less of a legal headache.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 07:11, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > The Webkit license page https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ says > portions licensed under LGPL and BSD licenses. > > Usually this means it's the user's choice which license to use. > > We would choose the BSD License for the components that we use. > > Can you find anywhere a statement that the Webkit.so is licensed only > under LGPL? > > Craig > > > On Jun 14, 2019, at 1:40 AM, 申远 <shenyua...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > As mentioned above, Webkit is under dual License(BSD and LPGL) and it's > > almost impossible for us to figure out which function is a pure BSD > > function. I don't know > > Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL will happen or > > not. Perhaps pure BSD header file will lead to pure BSD implementation. > > Perhaps? > > > > As for alternative dependency, it's possible if we make some major > changes > > to Weex. But convenience binary of each Weex release includes Webkit.so, > > how to solve that problem? Maybe publish two convenience binary, one > named > > Weex_WebKit.aar and the other named Weex_BSDKit.aar ? Not sounds like a > > good idea to me. > > > > Best Regards, > > YorkShen > > > > 申远 > > > > > > Sheng Wu <wu.sheng.841...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:23写道： > > > >> Hi York > >> > >> I am not a C/C++ coder, so I could be wrong. > >> > >> But from I saw, Catalog X dependency required is not right. Like Hen > said, > >> alternative is an option. > >> > >> Such as > >> Today’s another incubating project, ShardingSphere. > >> When user wants to MySQL sharing, then they needs to accept MySQL Driver > >> license first(or already accepted). > >> But user could use ShardingSphere with PostgreSQL JDBC Driver. > >> > >> > >> Sheng Wu > >> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin > >> > >> > >> > >>> 在 2019年6月14日，下午4:15，Hen <bay...@apache.org> 写道： > >>> > >>> Assuming Weex requires Webkit and is unable to work with an > alternative, > >>> the issue here is that users of Weex would seem to have to permit > reverse > >>> engineering in their legal terms. Our position has been that that goes > >>> beyond the scope of the Apache 2.0 license and would be an unpleasant > >>> surprise for users. > >>> > >>> (seem to have to => this is how we've discussed the license; an > actual > >>> court may decide something completely different) > >>> > >>> Looking at Weex's website's description, it does not seem to be that a > >> user > >>> of Weex will already have agreed to the terms of Webkit; thus I believe > >>> they would be unpleasantly surprised. > >>> > >>> Hen > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 <shenyua...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of our > >>>> dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied from > >> Webkit > >>>> is actually under LGPL license(Category X) and our license format > tools > >>>> changed the license header of these files to Apache v2 incorrectly. > I'd > >>>> like to hear advice from incubator that whether our actions below > would > >> fix > >>>> the Category X issue. > >>>> > >>>> First of all, License for Webkit is complicated, as it's said that > >> "WebKit > >>>> is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD > >>>> licenses available here." [1]. > >>>> > >>>> Now, Weex includes 1500 header files( .h files) from Webkit at > compiling > >>>> stage and around 150 of the are under BSD License. At runtime, Weex > will > >>>> dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit. > >>>> > >>>> After some major change, Weex could just include around 50 headers(.h > >>>> files) at compiling stage and all of them are under BSD license. At > >>>> runtime, Weex still needs to dynamic links to the shared library of > >> Webkit > >>>> as before. > >>>> > >>>> As Webkit is under dual license, and it's almost impossible for us to > >>>> figure out whether there is an function call chain like > >>>> Weex.apiA->Webkit.BSD.apiB->Webkit.BSD.apiC->Webkit.LGPL.apiD. I'd > like > >> to > >>>> know our proposed change is enough to fix the Category X dependency. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards, > >>>> YorkShen > >>>> > >>>> 申远 > >>>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
