Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Investigate license of librocksdb-sys #368

Open
david-martin opened this issue Aug 21, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Investigate license of librocksdb-sys #368

david-martin opened this issue Aug 21, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@david-martin
Copy link

See FOSSA report at https://app.fossa.com/projects/custom%2B162%2Fgit%2Bgithub.com%2FKuadrant%2Flimitador/refs/branch/main/e181a5aa3e6acbd3429923edd61b35a43d5abf17/issues/licensing?page=1&count=20&sort=issue_count_desc&grouping=revision&status=active&filter%5Btype%5D%5B0%5D=policy_flag&revisionScanId=62731053
which reports an AGPL-3.0 license.
The dependency has some specific licensing info at https://github.com/percona/PerconaFT?tab=readme-ov-file#license
The crate page lists 3 licenses (MIT, Apache2, BSD3) https://crates.io/crates/librocksdb-sys
However, the problem highlights is in some files like this:
image

Options are to rule out AGPL as the other more favourable licenses are actually applicable to what's being pulled in from the dependency, or find an alternative library with a suitable license.

@alexsnaps
Copy link
Member

alexsnaps commented Aug 21, 2024

Options are to rule out AGPL as the other more favourable licenses are actually applicable to what's being pulled in from the dependency, or find an alternative library with a suitable license.

I guess I'm confused as to what's "a suitable license"? Limitador (and all of Kuadrant afaik) is Apache v2, this dependency is distributed under Apache v2 (along other licenses)... including that very file that's referenced in the screenshot, that's indeed from another library, that again states that part is Apache v2... so I am really confused what's being discussed here? How AGPL would need to be an exception? Or what "a suitable license" would be in this case? Is the dual/triple licensing the issue? Am I missing some other files that are indeed not okay from that report?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants