Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] The minute of Weex Meetup - June 10th, 2019

[申远]

Thanks, I will bring this to general@incubator.a.o later.

Best Regards,
YorkShen

申远


Jan Piotrowski  于2019年6月12日周三 上午1:54写道：

> > Cordova does too, so Jan may be able to answer.
>
> Apache Cordova fortunately only _uses_ it via APIs that are offered by the
> OS, and does not _include_ it (or any of its code) - so this problem never
> came up.
>
> -J
>
> Am Di., 11. Juni 2019 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Myrle Krantz  >:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:20 PM 申远  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime".  What do
> > you
> > > > mean by that?  Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD?  Or are you
> > > using
> > > > WebCore or JavaScriptCore?
> > >
> > >
> > > According to the document, "WebKit is open source software with
> portions
> > > licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here." [1] and Weex
> > just
> > > has a dynamic link to the shared library of WebKit. IMO, the license of
> > > Webkit is really a mess, I really don't know whether Weex will invoke
> > LGPL
> > > part of Webkit at runtime, or there is a call chain will will lead to
> > LGPL
> > > code eventually, like Weex.apiA-> Webkit.BSD.apiA -> Webkit.BSD.apiB ->
> > > Webkit.LGPL.apiC
> > >
> >
> > I suggest asking on the gene...@incubator.apache.org list.  With luck,
> > you'll find someone there who's looked at this more deeply.   (Actually
> > Flex seems to use some part from webkit, so Justin may be able to answer
> > this question.  Cordova does too, so Jan may be able to answer.)  And if
> > not, they may send you on to the le...@apache.org list.  My guess is
> that,
> > if you're only using the parts that you can access using the BSD-licensed
> > headers, that you can consider it to be licensed under BSD.  I hope this
> is
> > true.  But I don't actually know.
> >
> > But what I do know is that all of the header files of a certain directory
> > > [2] in Webkit are under BSD License. And after some major change, Weex
> > > could just import the header file I mentioned at compiling stage,
> though
> > at
> > > runtime Weex has to dynamic link to the shared library of Webkit as
> > before.
> > > As for glibc(sorry for my misspelling, it's not glic, it's glibc),
> which
> > is
> > > also under LGPL license, any serious program could invoke the glibc by
> > > simply a *malloc* function in a *.c file. I don't see any difference
> > there
> > > between Weex using Webkit and any other C program using glibc.
> > >
> >
> > The point is that, if there are alternatives (which there are for the c
> > runtime), then the dependency is optional for your user.  Optional
> > dependencies are treated differently than required dependencies for ASF
> > release policy.  But again, I suggest asking on general@incubator.a.o.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Myrle
> >
>

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] The minute of Weex Meetup - June 10th, 2019

[Jan Piotrowski]

> Cordova does too, so Jan may be able to answer.

Apache Cordova fortunately only _uses_ it via APIs that are offered by the
OS, and does not _include_ it (or any of its code) - so this problem never
came up.

-J

Am Di., 11. Juni 2019 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Myrle Krantz :

> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:20 PM 申远  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime".  What do
> you
> > > mean by that?  Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD?  Or are you
> > using
> > > WebCore or JavaScriptCore?
> >
> >
> > According to the document, "WebKit is open source software with portions
> > licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here." [1] and Weex
> just
> > has a dynamic link to the shared library of WebKit. IMO, the license of
> > Webkit is really a mess, I really don't know whether Weex will invoke
> LGPL
> > part of Webkit at runtime, or there is a call chain will will lead to
> LGPL
> > code eventually, like Weex.apiA-> Webkit.BSD.apiA -> Webkit.BSD.apiB ->
> > Webkit.LGPL.apiC
> >
>
> I suggest asking on the gene...@incubator.apache.org list.  With luck,
> you'll find someone there who's looked at this more deeply.   (Actually
> Flex seems to use some part from webkit, so Justin may be able to answer
> this question.  Cordova does too, so Jan may be able to answer.)  And if
> not, they may send you on to the le...@apache.org list.  My guess is that,
> if you're only using the parts that you can access using the BSD-licensed
> headers, that you can consider it to be licensed under BSD.  I hope this is
> true.  But I don't actually know.
>
> But what I do know is that all of the header files of a certain directory
> > [2] in Webkit are under BSD License. And after some major change, Weex
> > could just import the header file I mentioned at compiling stage, though
> at
> > runtime Weex has to dynamic link to the shared library of Webkit as
> before.
> > As for glibc(sorry for my misspelling, it's not glic, it's glibc), which
> is
> > also under LGPL license, any serious program could invoke the glibc by
> > simply a *malloc* function in a *.c file. I don't see any difference
> there
> > between Weex using Webkit and any other C program using glibc.
> >
>
> The point is that, if there are alternatives (which there are for the c
> runtime), then the dependency is optional for your user.  Optional
> dependencies are treated differently than required dependencies for ASF
> release policy.  But again, I suggest asking on general@incubator.a.o.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
>

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] The minute of Weex Meetup - June 10th, 2019

[Myrle Krantz]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:20 PM 申远  wrote:

> >
> > But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime".  What do you
> > mean by that?  Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD?  Or are you
> using
> > WebCore or JavaScriptCore?
>
>
> According to the document, "WebKit is open source software with portions
> licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here." [1] and Weex just
> has a dynamic link to the shared library of WebKit. IMO, the license of
> Webkit is really a mess, I really don't know whether Weex will invoke LGPL
> part of Webkit at runtime, or there is a call chain will will lead to LGPL
> code eventually, like Weex.apiA-> Webkit.BSD.apiA -> Webkit.BSD.apiB ->
> Webkit.LGPL.apiC
>

I suggest asking on the gene...@incubator.apache.org list.  With luck,
you'll find someone there who's looked at this more deeply.   (Actually
Flex seems to use some part from webkit, so Justin may be able to answer
this question.  Cordova does too, so Jan may be able to answer.)  And if
not, they may send you on to the le...@apache.org list.  My guess is that,
if you're only using the parts that you can access using the BSD-licensed
headers, that you can consider it to be licensed under BSD.  I hope this is
true.  But I don't actually know.

But what I do know is that all of the header files of a certain directory
> [2] in Webkit are under BSD License. And after some major change, Weex
> could just import the header file I mentioned at compiling stage, though at
> runtime Weex has to dynamic link to the shared library of Webkit as before.
> As for glibc(sorry for my misspelling, it's not glic, it's glibc), which is
> also under LGPL license, any serious program could invoke the glibc by
> simply a *malloc* function in a *.c file. I don't see any difference there
> between Weex using Webkit and any other C program using glibc.
>

The point is that, if there are alternatives (which there are for the c
runtime), then the dependency is optional for your user.  Optional
dependencies are treated differently than required dependencies for ASF
release policy.  But again, I suggest asking on general@incubator.a.o.

Best Regards,
Myrle

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] The minute of Weex Meetup - June 10th, 2019

[申远]

>
> But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime".  What do you
> mean by that?  Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD?  Or are you using
> WebCore or JavaScriptCore?


According to the document, "WebKit is open source software with portions
licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here." [1] and Weex just
has a dynamic link to the shared library of WebKit. IMO, the license of
Webkit is really a mess, I really don't know whether Weex will invoke LGPL
part of Webkit at runtime, or there is a call chain will will lead to LGPL
code eventually, like Weex.apiA-> Webkit.BSD.apiA -> Webkit.BSD.apiB ->
Webkit.LGPL.apiC

But what I do know is that all of the header files of a certain directory
[2] in Webkit are under BSD License. And after some major change, Weex
could just import the header file I mentioned at compiling stage, though at
runtime Weex has to dynamic link to the shared library of Webkit as before.
As for glibc(sorry for my misspelling, it's not glic, it's glibc), which is
also under LGPL license, any serious program could invoke the glibc by
simply a *malloc* function in a *.c file. I don't see any difference there
between Weex using Webkit and any other C program using glibc.

[1] https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/
[2]
https://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/releases/WebKitGTK/webkit-2.17.4/Source/JavaScriptCore/API/

Best Regards,
YorkShen

申远


Myrle Krantz  于2019年6月11日周二 下午6:39写道：

> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:01 PM York Shen  wrote:
>
> > Weex just copied about the shared library and 1500 header file from
> Webkit
> > which is a mixture of BSD and LGPL license, and 150 of them are under
> LGPL
> > license.  Though those files are just header files ( .h files), and Weex
> > dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit. I am still not sure
> whether
> > this is a violation of ASF's license policy. If this is not allowed by
> > ASF’s policy, we can cut down the header files to 50 and all of the files
> > are under BSD license by a major change. After the change, we still need
> to
> > dynamic link to the Webkit which is still a mixture of LGPL and BSD
> license
> > at runtime. But any serious programs on Linux at runtime have to link to
> > glic which is also under LGPL license, we don’t think linking a LGPL
> share
> > library at runtime is a problem here.
> >
>
> If it is possible for your end user to replace your runtime dependencies
> with component which is ALv2-licensed (or compatible), then that is an
> allowed dependency.  Otherwise, unfortunately, it is not.  The issue is
> that we at the ASF want to keep the downstream consumers of our code "safe"
> from viral licenses.  While it is true that LGPL is less viral than GPL, it
> is nonetheless a so-called Category X license.  From your text above, I
> suspect that this is not an allowed dependency.
>
> https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>
> What makes GLIC different is that there are other c-runtime implementations
> out there, so users of our project aren't required to use that particular
> implementation.  (JPA -> OpenJPA/Hibernate is another example of an
> application of this principle.)
>
> But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime".  What do you
> mean by that?  Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD?  Or are you using
> WebCore or JavaScriptCore?
>
> Best,
> Myrle
>

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] The minute of Weex Meetup - June 10th, 2019

[Myrle Krantz]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:01 PM York Shen  wrote:

> Weex just copied about the shared library and 1500 header file from Webkit
> which is a mixture of BSD and LGPL license, and 150 of them are under LGPL
> license.  Though those files are just header files ( .h files), and Weex
> dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit. I am still not sure whether
> this is a violation of ASF's license policy. If this is not allowed by
> ASF’s policy, we can cut down the header files to 50 and all of the files
> are under BSD license by a major change. After the change, we still need to
> dynamic link to the Webkit which is still a mixture of LGPL and BSD license
> at runtime. But any serious programs on Linux at runtime have to link to
> glic which is also under LGPL license, we don’t think linking a LGPL share
> library at runtime is a problem here.
>

If it is possible for your end user to replace your runtime dependencies
with component which is ALv2-licensed (or compatible), then that is an
allowed dependency.  Otherwise, unfortunately, it is not.  The issue is
that we at the ASF want to keep the downstream consumers of our code "safe"
from viral licenses.  While it is true that LGPL is less viral than GPL, it
is nonetheless a so-called Category X license.  From your text above, I
suspect that this is not an allowed dependency.

https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x

What makes GLIC different is that there are other c-runtime implementations
out there, so users of our project aren't required to use that particular
implementation.  (JPA -> OpenJPA/Hibernate is another example of an
application of this principle.)

But you say "a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime".  What do you
mean by that?  Is there a way to reduce that to just BSD?  Or are you using
WebCore or JavaScriptCore?

Best,
Myrle

[ANNOUNCEMENT] The minute of Weex Meetup - June 10th, 2019

[York Shen]

Date
June 10th, 2019 (UTC+8)

Attendances

The following PPMC members were present:
York Shen
The following committers were present:
Hanks Zhang
Ling He
Peihan Chen
Qianyuan Wang
Yayun Dong
Minute of Weex MeetUp
LGPL License
The fact that Weex contains LGPL licensed header file(.h file) may be a block 
issue for our next release or even graduation. The detail is discussed in 
another mailing list[1], I will just give a brief explanation here

Weex just copied about the shared library and 1500 header file from Webkit 
which is a mixture of BSD and LGPL license, and 150 of them are under LGPL 
license.  Though those files are just header files ( .h files), and Weex 
dynamic links to the shared library of Webkit. I am still not sure whether this 
is a violation of ASF's license policy. If this is not allowed by ASF’s policy, 
we can cut down the header files to 50 and all of the files are under BSD 
license by a major change. After the change, we still need to dynamic link to 
the Webkit which is still a mixture of LGPL and BSD license at runtime. But any 
serious programs on Linux at runtime have to link to glic which is also under 
LGPL license, we don’t think linking a LGPL share library at runtime is a 
problem here.

Potential violation of ASF copyright or trademark
As it's discussed before, if users are able to create a Weex App only using 
tools under Apache Weex, then a good part of the problems might be solved. With 
donating the following project to ASF, the issue will be well solved.
https://github.com/weexteam/weex-vue-loader 

https://github.com/weexteam/weex-loader 

https://github.com/weexteam/weex-toolkit 

It’s still unclear whether the IP of the following repos belongs to individuals 
or company, but considering the authors of the above repos giving up their IP, 
it’s enough if we get company signed on the SGA.

Action:
@Hanks Zhang will be responsible for figuring out dependencies of the repos
@York Shen will be responsible for prepare the SGA.

Besides, Weex playground and weex_sdk should be separated into two repos, but 
this is not a blocking.

Next meetup
The time of next offline meetup is not clear but shall be scheduled several 
weeks later, with email notification in this mailing list.

[1] 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ed725c9b6ff5ff658f8c639ed8116bfb0be44f46cfb7fcb52284b065@%3Cdev.weex.apache.org%3E
 


Best Regards,
York Shen

申远