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

License issue GPL dependency rfc3987 #568

Open
kdekker-private opened this issue Mar 14, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

License issue GPL dependency rfc3987 #568

kdekker-private opened this issue Mar 14, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@kdekker-private
Copy link

kdekker-private commented Mar 14, 2024

cyclonedx-python (cyclonedx-bom==4.1.2) depends via cyclonedx-python-lib==6.4.3 on the package jsonschema, but with the special option format (jsonschema[format]).
This introduces the GPL dependency of package rfc3987, which I think is not the intention.

How to reproduce:

  1. Install Python 3.10.11
  2. In cmd call: pip install cyclonedx-bom

Prove:

image

Potential solution:

  • Depend on jsonschema[format-nongpl]

Temporary user solution:

  • Downgrade cyclonedx-bom to a version without the dependency such as 3.11.7.
@kdekker-private kdekker-private changed the title License issue GPL License issue GPL dependency rfc3987 Mar 14, 2024
@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member

This introduces the GPL dependency of package rfc3987, which I think is not the intention.

some background: we are not shipping any assembly, nor bundle. Therefore, we never mix any licenses.
Neither do users of this package generate any bundle/assembly when installing it. All they do is putting certain packages somewhere on their machine, so that python can find and run them.
This means, at no point, a mix of licenses exists.
This means, no license issues exist.

Is that not true, @kdekker-private ?

Anyway, I will check whether a non-gpl package can do the job.

@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member

The rfc3987 is used to validate iri-reference in JSON - which is widely used in CycloneDX.
Therefore, schema validation would not be complete without it.

@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member

@kdekker-private could you elaborate how the current situation affects you?
What does it prevent you from doing/achieving?

@kdekker-private
Copy link
Author

At the current stage it does not prevent us anymore from doing/achieving anything. We accidently added your package in distribution. But removed it and are happy to use it outside of that.

However, I think it would be good for transparency to at least notify the user in the readme that a GPL licensed package is used under the hood. The MIT license of your package might mask this a bit. Ideal would be to remove the dependency on the GPL package, if it is possible. Thanks for the quick response.

@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member

re: #568 (comment)

sounds reasonable. 👍
Would you open a pull request that improves the documentation in a way that suites your needs? Thank you in advance

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants