On 11/6/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 6, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:23:49AM -0500, Henri Yandell wrote: > >> So at least 5 LGPL jars and 4 BCL jars. As far as I know, we're not > >> meant > >> to have these in SVN, and that the imports on the LGPL jars are not > >> meant > >> to be in SVN either. > > > > Correct. The official ASF policy today is "No LGPL dependencies in > > Java > > projects." As you mention, the board has discussed allowing LGPL for > > Java projects but any resolution stating that has been tabled > > indefinitely. A small part of the reason for the delay is that we've > > been told Eben Moglen from the FSF will be issuing an opinion > > clarifying > > the relationship between LGPL and Java. > > We in the Roller project and the Apache folks who helped usher us into > the Incubator were all well aware of Roller's dependence on LGPL > libraries. When we voted to move Roller to Apache, we all knew that > work would have to be done to resolve the LGPL issue. We also > discussed the worst-case scenario of replacing Hibernate with JDO or > something similar.
The thinking is that we can replace Hibernate with the JSR-xxx API. Then Hibernate would be much like using a JDBC driver. > We heard that a new LGPL policy was forthcoming, so > we entered the incubator and crossed our fingers hoping for the best. > > I keep on hearing different proposed LGPL policies, so I'm pretty > confused at this point. It's confusing. I'll buy you a beer in San Diego and bring you up to date on however things are then. > In the interim, we still need to ship releases to our users. Roller 1.3 > is ready for release and Roller 2.0 is close on it's heels. If we've > really painted ourselves into a corner and can't make releases through > either the ASF or Java.Net, then we should back out of the Incubator > and come back later when ASF has figured out an LGPL policy. There's no reason to my mind why we can't release through Java.Net. It leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths for committers to release forks (which in essence this would be); and yet we fight for the right for companies to be able to re-release/fork our code. Anyone who complains need merely be invited to submit some patches to solve the LGPL issue :) The important part to figure out is whether the previous release was correct. We need to make sure it's not called Apache Xxxxat all, and make sure we include "This code based on Apache code" type of messages. > I really REALLY don't want to do that, so can we please get a green > light to ship interim "incubating" releases through Java.Net? +1. It's the only way forward for 1.3. We need to kill the bad jars from SVN asap; but hopefully we can make a java.net release more asap than killing the bad jars. Any open issues with 1.3 apart from the LGPL stuff? For 2.0 I think we should be trying to get a clear LGPL message, or proto-message; and get things dealt with prior to the release. Effectively this means: 1) Removing 'bad' jars from SVN. 2) Modifying install process/build instructions to instruct user to download the relevant jars themselves. 3) Ensuring nobody is concerned with the various usages of LGPL'd code. Hen
