It looks like we have got result[1] from Legal VP, I will bring it here now
1. It's fine if Weex only could include header files under 2-clause BSD
license from Webkit at compiling time and has a dynamic link to Webkit.so
at runtime.
2. It's recommended that excluding Webkit.so from Weex convenience
library. Users would include the code snippet below to include both weex
and webkit.
<dependency>
<artifactId>weex_sdk</artifactId>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<artifactId>webkit</artifactId>
</dependency>
The following is what I need to consult from Incubator:
Google will ban all apps without 64 bit published in Google Play from 1st,
August, 2019 [1]. Though it's a good idea of excluding Webkit.so from
convenience library of Weex, Weex community needs to publish next release
with 64-bit support ASAP to give users enough time to upgrade Weex. I'd
like to remain webkit.so in convenience library of Weex only for next
release.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
[2] https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
Best Regards,
YorkShen
申远
Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 于2019年6月24日周一 上午7:32写道：
> 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
>
>
