Thanks for your supporting.
I will bring it to general@incubator when vote passed in weex@dev
Best Regards,
York Shen
申远
> 在 2019年7月2日，15:20，Myrle Krantz 写道：
>
> Hey Jim,
>
> Thank you for asking. : o) Weex is still cutting the release. It's
> precisely because this can be time-consuming
Hey Jim,
Thank you for asking. : o) Weex is still cutting the release. It's
precisely because this can be time-consuming that they asked before they
started. They'll bring it for a vote once they have it.
Best,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:19 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Myrle, did you get
Myrle, did you get all you needed? Enough votes and all to get the release
unblocked?
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> I've said it on dev@weex, and on private@incubator, but I wanted to make
> sure and say it here too. Weex should cut the release. We'll figure out
> th
I've said it on dev@weex, and on private@incubator, but I wanted to make
sure and say it here too. Weex should cut the release. We'll figure out
the rest later. The straw poll on private@incubator also confirms: you
have my support and the support of many of the mentors in the incubator. I
apol
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 We
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 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
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, Cra
ในวันที่ ศ. 21 มิ.ย. 2019 15:37 申远 เขียนว่า:
> Sorry for my late reply, I have open a JIRA issue[1] for this problem.
>
> I'm really appreciated your help here, thank you all.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
>
> Best Regards,
> YorkShen
>
> 申远
>
>
> 申远 于2019年6月18日周二 下午8:0
Hi,
> 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.
Not quite actually it not dual licensed in the tradition l sense. It’s not
licensed A or B but it’s licen
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 i
Sorry for my late reply, I have open a JIRA issue[1] for this problem.
I'm really appreciated your help here, thank you all.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464
Best Regards,
YorkShen
申远
申远 于2019年6月18日周二 下午8:08写道：
> Thanks for help.
>
> I will bring this to legal-jira this w
Thanks for help.
I will bring this to legal-jira this weeks later.
Best Regards,
YorkShen
申远
Myrle Krantz 于2019年6月17日周一 下午8:07写道：
> Thank you all,
>
> YorkShen, I think at this point the best thing to do is to open a "legal"
> ticket at this Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL)
Thank you all,
YorkShen, I think at this point the best thing to do is to open a "legal"
ticket at this Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL). I
suspect that if you're only including the BSD-licensed headers, that Weex
will only be dependent on BSD-licensed code. It's possible that
Some things I don't think have been mentioned in this thread so far:
1) Even if you make Webkit optional by offering V8, I believe the ASF criteria
for "optional" includes "less than half of your users will use that option" and
so if Webkit offers better performance and most of the users select
Hi -
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 5:08 AM, York Shen wrote:
>
> It depends on the definition of optional dependency. Weex targets iOS,
> Android and Browser environment and Webkit header files and shared library
> are only bundled for Android environment. As for other environments, the OS
> or brows
Hi Merle,
A footnote on your list below.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:39 AM, Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> I feel like the answers provided here up till now are too simple. I
> believe we have projects at Apache which seem to be using, or have used
> Webkit: (
> https://issues.apache
It depends on the definition of optional dependency. Weex targets iOS, Android
and Browser environment and Webkit header files and shared library are only
bundled for Android environment. As for other environments, the OS or browser
itself has exposed enough API for Weex.
PS: I am pretty sure
Hi,
> Well, what if Weex copies some BSD header files in Webkit then run on Webkit?
> IMHO, the Webkit is also an environment for Weex in this case.
You still didi not answer if this is an optional dependancy? But again either
way I suggest you ask on legal discuss.
Thanks,
Justin
-
Hi,
> Well, what if Weex copies some BSD header files in Webkit then run on Webkit?
> IMHO, the Webkit is also an environment for Weex in this case.
Not the same situation I’m sorry. Webkit and was not a required dependancy and
no code form it was in the code base. I would need to double check,
Well, what if Weex copies some BSD header files in Webkit then run on Webkit?
IMHO, the Webkit is also an environment for Weex in this case.
Best Regards,
York Shen
申远
> 在 2019年6月14日，18:37，Justin Mclean 写道：
>
> Hi,
>
>> So this question may have been seen before. Justin, one of the projects
Hi,
> So this question may have been seen before. Justin, one of the projects
> which seems to currently be using Webkit is Flex. Given the weird
> part-by-part licensing, how did Flex justify it's decision? Or am I
> misreading, and Webkit is just an environment for Flex?
It just an environme
I feel like the answers provided here up till now are too simple. I
believe we have projects at Apache which seem to be using, or have used
Webkit: (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-232?jql=text%20~%20%22webkit%22
)
* Flex
* Myfaces
* Shindig (?)
* Cordova
* Wave
* Corinthia
* Netbea
>
> Sorry to say, you have to
> 1. Make that clear(I agree it is hard to do, even harder to recheck for
> incubator, hope don’t need to do that)
> Or
> 2. Seek for an alternative.
Option 1 is not realistic. However, Weex could switch from Webkit
dependency to V8 [1] which is under BSD License. Tho
Inline.
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> 在 2019年6月14日，下午4:40，申远 写道：
>
> 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->Webk
Hi,
> As mentioned above, Webkit is under dual License(BSD and LPGL)
It that was the was you would be OK dual licensed usually mean you can choose
the license you want to use. Sadly as you say this is not the case here but
"WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL an
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 implemen
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
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 fo
>
> In the link your shared, there is this
> > For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
> for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
> You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
This is just the content of LG
Hi,
In the link your shared, there is this
> For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a
> fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must
> make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
This is not compatible with
30 matches
Mail list logo
