Dinesh’s Web Log

dumped thoughts.

1. Virgil 1.6.08 / 3pm

   Hello,

   I am the person who asked the question on the mail-list. I think this is a very serious issue that the Axis2C team has to address quick. The worst scenario I see now is that if there are mandatory dependencies for Axis2C which the user needs in order to use Axis2C and this dependencies are GNU it meens that Axis2C itself should be GNU. The bottom line is that legally users are allowed to used Axis2C just in GNU projects(because of dependencies) so Axis2C is not correctly marketed as Apache2 license.

   Thank you,
   Virgil
2. Senaka 1.6.08 / 4pm

   Hi all,

   I believe Axis2/C team could address this issue by not shipping dependant binaries and/or source of other products that come with a GNU license. It would rather be the user who will have to confirm to the GNU license in his/her use of GNU-Licensed products, and not the Apache Axis2/C software that ships with an Apache License.

   However, if we bundle Axis2/C with dependencies such as iconv, we will have to release under a GNU license which cannot be done.

   Therefore, the conclusion is, the user will have to download and install mandatory dependencies.

   Regards,
   Senaka
3. Dumindu 1.6.08 / 5pm

   I think Senaka has mentioned the correct approach Axis2/C should take. IIUC, GNU license restricts distribution, not use. In addition, it should not be an issue for someone to use Axis2/C in a product that they distribute as far as they don’t ship the dependent GNU-licensed binaries or sources.
4. Virgil 1.6.08 / 5pm

   Hi,

   I think I don’t get it correctly. If the dependency is mandatory in Axis2C it meens the user is forced to download it and ship it with his product. So the user is forced to make his product GNU. It is un-fair from the Axis2 team to throw the license issue on the user. The bottom line is that Axis2C cannot be used and users will avoid it because of this license issues. Maybe it is something I am missing.

   Regards,
   Virgil
5. Samisa 1.7.08 / 2am

   It is incorrect to say that “Axis2 team to throw the license issue on the user”. See my reply to the thread here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.webservices.axis-c.user/1604
6. Engwar » Axis2/C licensing 1.8.08 / 9am

   [...] an issue. Some project, somewhere on some list. The season came early for Axis2/C in the new year Dinesh list the question regarding the issue a user [...]
7. David Illsley 1.8.08 / 4pm

   FWIW, the closest I can find to apache policy is at [1] which Axis2/C doesn’t conform to at the moment (in that the dependencies are not listed on the main page).

   It certainly seems less than ideal, and I think that there really should be an explanation about why non-Apache licensed libraries have been chosen somewhere on the site, and that the team should consider replacing those dependencies.

   [1] http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-systemrequirements
8. Dinesh 1.10.08 / 4am

   David, Thanks for the pointer. Here my reply to relevant thread in axis-c-user list.
   http://marc.info/?l=axis-c-user&m=119986833123863&w=2

   If you have more thoughts on this please let us know.
9. Senaka 1.12.08 / 2am

   According to Samisa’s reply to the Axis2/C list at [1], I guess we confirm to the Apache Policy. And the confirmation to the $subject is found in [2]. I believe that Virgil’s question would not lead to a critical issue as the User who wishes to bundle Axis2/C can bundle Axis2/C with the Apache-Compatible Licensed Alternatives and optionally leave the 2rd-User to choose non-Apache-Compatible works.

   However, as Virgil points out the word “Mandatory” in our documentation confuses a potential User.

   [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.webservices.axis-c.user/1604
   [2] http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-optional

Dinesh Premalal 2008

Entries RSS Comments RSS