On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:23 AM, Shane Curcuru
wrote:
Nick Couchman wrote on 4/11/17 10:26 AM:
>> Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator
>> project, and am developing an extension for the project that has
>> dependencies on binaries (JARs via Maven) that are lice
Nick Couchman wrote on 4/11/17 10:26 AM:
> Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator
> project, and am developing an extension for the project that has
> dependencies on binaries (JARs via Maven) that are licensed under
> Category-X licenses. We've already determined that we
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:03 AM, John D. Ament
wrote:
>
> The info I provided was based on a discussion on legal, originally carried
> over from a discussion on optional dependencies on software licensed under
> the Amazon Software License -
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2630f3d9540f02ef
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes
> > hold upon linking (at build time), not upon referencing the API via an
> > import, include, etc. i
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM Mike Jumper
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2017 17:29, "Niclas Hedhman" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes
> > hold upon linking (at build time), not upon refer
On Apr 11, 2017 17:29, "Niclas Hedhman" wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper
wrote:
>
> Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes
> hold upon linking (at build time), not upon referencing the API via an
> import, include, etc. in the source.
>
You
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Mike Jumper
wrote:
>
> Even in the case of the GPL, my understanding is that the virality takes
> hold upon linking (at build time), not upon referencing the API via an
> import, include, etc. in the source.
>
Your understanding is, simply put, not aligned with
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache
> License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim
> that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality to the
> dependent p
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache
> License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim
> that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality to the
> dependent p
Please note that Cat X licenses are deemed to be incompatible with Apache
License, insofar that they are viral in nature, and FSF has made a claim
that dynamically linked languages, such as Java, forces the virality to the
dependent project... Meaning, if you have an import statement linking your
c
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:10 AM, John D. Ament
wrote:
Nick,
> In general, the LICENSE and NOTICE refers to the contents of the release
> itself. If you're not bundling any of those outside dependencies, then
> there would be nothing to include.
Okay, sounds good, thank you.
> Please
Nick,
In general, the LICENSE and NOTICE refers to the contents of the release
itself. If you're not bundling any of those outside dependencies, then
there would be nothing to include.
Please also note - you can provide a binary release, assuming that the
binary release does not package the outs
Hello, everyone,I'm currently working on the Guacamole incubator project, and
am developing an extension for the project that has dependencies on binaries
(JARs via Maven) that are licensed under Category-X licenses. We've already
determined that we cannot distribute a binary version of this ex
13 matches
Mail list logo
