Lets continue this discussion on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
