License issues in jna/native/libffi #1691

Activity

1. JaredDavis22 commented on Oct 1, 2025

   

   JaredDavis22

   on Oct 1, 2025

   More actions

   Hi - Does the wording in the libffi license file for the build tools help?

   https://github.com/java-native-access/jna/blob/master/native/libffi/LICENSE-BUILDTOOLS

   "The libffi source distribution contains certain code that is not part
   of libffi, and is only used as tooling to assist with the building and
   testing of libffi. This includes the msvcc.sh script used to wrap the
   Microsoft compiler with GNU compatible command-line options,
   make_sunver.pl, and the libffi test code distributed in the
   testsuite/libffi.bhaible directory. This code is distributed with
   libffi for the purpose of convenience only, and libffi is in no way
   derived from this code.

   msvcc.sh an testsuite/libffi.bhaible are both distributed under the
   terms of the GNU GPL version 2, as below.
   "
2. JaredDavis22 commented on Oct 1, 2025

   

   JaredDavis22

   on Oct 1, 2025

   Last edited by JaredDavis22

   More actions

   I just checked the first file in the list X.java. The report given shows X.java as GPL-2.0-only. The X.java file has this text:

   " * The contents of this file is dual-licensed under 2

   • alternative Open Source/Free licenses: LGPL 2.1 or later and
   • Apache License 2.0. (starting with JNA version 4.0.0).
     "

   ahh - but line 47 does have this...

   /**

   • Object oriented X window system.
   • Some code segments in this class are based on the code of the program
   • wmctrl (licensed under GPLv2) written by Tomas Styblo <[email protected]>.
   • Thanks a lot, Tomas!
   • @author Stefan Endrullis
     */

   I am not a lawyer...

   full header below.

   "/* Copyright (c) 2008 Stefan Endrullis, All Rights Reserved
   *

   • The contents of this file is dual-licensed under 2
   • alternative Open Source/Free licenses: LGPL 2.1 or later and
   • Apache License 2.0. (starting with JNA version 4.0.0).
   • You can freely decide which license you want to apply to
   • the project.
   • You may obtain a copy of the LGPL License at:
   • http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
   • A copy is also included in the downloadable source code package
   • containing JNA, in file "LGPL2.1".
   • You may obtain a copy of the Apache License at:
   • http://www.apache.org/licenses/
   • A copy is also included in the downloadable source code package
   • containing JNA, in file "AL2.0".
     */"
3. albutzbdr commented on Oct 1, 2025

   

   albutzbdr

   on Oct 1, 2025

   Author

   More actions

   Yes, X.java is the exception - with a bit of wiggle room interpretation-wise, certainly.
   On the wording you posted: Thanks for pointing this out, I actually did overlook this. Still tricky, though. The wording doesn't cover all assets that have the GPL applied to them.
   But maybe the solution lies elsewhere. I just checked the Maven package and it seems the files are not contained in there; which would make sense, as they're build tools. So the way I see it, the final artifacts don't contain the files. Meaning, the GPL would only be problematic when compiling all the source code from this Github repo here; but not when using the Maven package.
4. atgreen commented on Oct 3, 2026

   

   atgreen

   on Oct 3, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   I wrote that libffi license explanation years ago when license scanners first started becoming popular. None of them could distinguish build-time software from run-time software. They probably still can't.

   Related to this, however, I just submitted #1739 because the JNA binary distributions should include the libffi copyright notice.