proguard-maven-plugin icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
proguard-maven-plugin copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon wvengen

License is unclear

Open mdeverdelhan opened this issue 10 years ago • 11 comments

The LICENSE.txt file contains a LGPL 2.1 while the headers of source files are Apache 2.0 compliant. Exactly under which license the plugin is released?

mdeverdelhan avatar Mar 21 '15 16:03 mdeverdelhan

Good point. I see that the original sources have this as well. The file LICENSE.txt is from 2007, while the updated headers have a commit from 2008 mentioning "Updated headers: Licensed under the Apache License". I guess Apache it is.

Anyone care to check with pyx4me people?

wvengen avatar Mar 21 '15 23:03 wvengen

@wvengen I'll do.

cmorty avatar Mar 22 '15 16:03 cmorty

The LGPL originally popup up because progurad was linked in code(in pyx4me code) at Compile Time. I believe in last version we have removed this linking and progurad is called using reflection. Please be aware of this part! When you maintaining the code!

As to pyx4me code it was intended as Apache License. I was unclear for me how to deal with dependencies in maven.
So because of dependency on "proguard" runtime that assume compile the LICENSE.txt (LGPL) was not removed.

If you find a proper guides on how do deal with this you can remove the LICENSE.txt (LGPL) from proguard-maven-plugin code.

skarzhevskyy avatar Mar 23 '15 15:03 skarzhevskyy

@wvengen, @skarzhevskyy If I get this right, we should remove the LICENSE.txt, or rather replace it with the Apache license, and change the license of the github-project to Apache. Right?

cmorty avatar Jan 11 '17 11:01 cmorty

Did anyone check for that ProGuard is indeed called using reflection (or fork)? If that's the case, we can remove LICENSE.txt indeed and specify the license as Apache.

wvengen avatar Jan 11 '17 12:01 wvengen

As I said I have no objection for changing LICENSE.

skarzhevskyy avatar Jan 11 '17 15:01 skarzhevskyy

Check, let's do so! Thanks everyone for getting clarity on this.

wvengen avatar Jan 13 '17 11:01 wvengen

The License on the main page ist still LGPL 2.1 (Top right corner) https://github.com/wvengen/proguard-maven-plugin

And I just saw that the license.txt is also still LGPL. @wvengen Didn't you want to change that?

Lonzak avatar Feb 13 '18 16:02 Lonzak

A few questions:

  • Should the LICENSE.txt file containing the old LGPL license be deleted then? Because some tooling, such as the GitHub UI, still considers it: GitHub UI license
  • Should the pom.xml be adjusted as well? https://github.com/wvengen/proguard-maven-plugin/blob/790b51edfbdea92378244856ecd7316c94c229f8/pom.xml#L26-L29

maloewe-ona avatar Aug 16 '23 09:08 maloewe-ona

@maloewe-ona can you provide a pull request for updating that? If not, I will do it when I have time.

lasselindqvist avatar Aug 17 '23 06:08 lasselindqvist

@lasselindqvist, no sorry I cannot provide a pull request for this.

Though as small hint (in case this is useful); the Maven POM reference recommends that the <name> should be an SPDX identifier, so for Apache 2.0, it should probably be <name>Apache-2.0</name>.

maloewe-ona avatar Aug 17 '23 08:08 maloewe-ona