On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer > to > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in doubt. > > * zlib1 -- Zlib license > * libxml2 -- MIT license > * GNU libiconv -- LGPL > * SDL -- Zlib license > * SDL_Image -- Zlib license > > > And Brane's suggestion > > would work in any case, even with (L)GPL bits. Hosting it outside and > letting > > developers/users to pull them in on their own is pretty much > bullet-proof. > > It's not quite bulletproof in the case of libraries. Optional LGPL > libraries and GPL build tools, yes. Optional GPL libraries, it > depends. Mandatory GPL or LGPL library dependencies are probably > trouble. Thanks all for the replies, I keep learning. We have decided on the bullet proof method, by creating a new non-asf git repo. thanks jan i > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
