Outline-client: [Suggestion] Use submodule for 3rd party code instead of copying source codes.

[RedL0tus]

https://github.com/Jigsaw-Code/outline-client/tree/master/third_party

It's better (cleaner) to use git submodule here since all of those 3rd party code have git repositories.

CocoaAsyncSocket: https://github.com/robbiehanson/CocoaAsyncSocket
CocoaLumberjack: https://github.com/CocoaLumberjack/CocoaLumberjack
Potatso: https://github.com/haxpor/Potatso
badvpn: https://github.com/ambrop72/badvpn or https://github.com/shadowsocks/badvpn
c-ares: https://github.com/c-ares/c-ares
Cygwin: https://github.com/cygwin/cygwin
libev: https://github.com/shadowsocks/libev or https://github.com/enki/libev
mbedtls: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls
pcre: https://github.com/svn2github/pcre
sentry-java: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-java
sentry-cocoa: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa
ss-libev: https://github.com/shadowsocks/shadowsocks-libev
libsodium: https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium

[PeterCxy]

I'm afraid that this project could have licensing issues by directly including / linking these incompatible projects.

[RedL0tus]

@PeterCxy Seems so... Maybe we should open another issue.

[fortuna]

AFAICT, with GPL we need to provide all source code we use. We can't simply link to them.

[PeterCxy]

AFAIK, if you believe you would have trouble by simply using submodules to
your forked repos of Shadowsocks and related projects, then wouldn't you
encounter any licensing issue by including GPLv3 dependencies inside an
Apache 2.0 project? Isn't it possible that Outline could be considered
derivative work of Shadowsocks?

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 11:03 PM Vinicius Fortuna [e-mail]
wrote:

AFAICT, with GPL we need to provide all source code we use. We can't
simply link to them.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/Jigsaw-Code/outline-client/issues/14#issuecomment-375338790,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEUox4MC1uNN_FELOqzlVtxCYy0dal3mks5tg71PgaJpZM4S2POl
.

[RedL0tus]

@fortuna emmmmmmm... I suggest you search for what submodule is...

And the license issue we‘ve talked about is that Apache License isn’t compatible with GPL, but Potatso and Shadowsocks-libev you are using here are licensed under GPL.

For more details, please visit: https://github.com/shadowsocks/shadowsocks-libev/issues/1991

[fortuna]

Ignore my previous comment, I'm not used to working with submodules. I agree submodules can help us, but I think one of my teammates had an issue when he tried it. We'll look into it. We also welcome PRs. :-)

[fortuna]

On the licensing issue, we take the licenses seriously and we had our legal counsel verify that we are complying. I'll see if we can get more details to share.

[ghost]

Regarding licenses: It is Google's position every version of the GPL is compatible with the Apache 2 license. In particular, as it relates to Shadowsocks libev, we are running it on a separate process.

Regarding submodules: Yes, that's a good idea. We'll debate internally a bit to make sure to do it right. Thanks for the suggestion!