Repository navigation
Regarding License info of Microsoft.Android.Ref 31.0.101-preview.9.16 #8779
Description
Android application type
Classic Xamarin.Android (MonoAndroid13.0, etc.)
Affected platform version
Xamarin Android
Description
I am trying to look license for this component - Microsoft.Android.Ref31.0.101-preview.9.16 of version (31.0.101-preview.9.16) for a project.
NuGet.org shows license info as XamarinStudio License. But in Project website, it redirects to Git repo (https://github.com/xamarin/xamarin-android) which has MIT License for other release branches.
I could not find this branch 31.0.101-preview.9.16 in Git repo unlike other release branches.
Can you please share the license Microsoft.Android.Ref31.0.101-preview.9.16 comes under? is it MIT License or XAMARIN SOFTWARE LICENSE ?
It would be helpful if you can share git repo referring to this release branch - 31.0.101-preview.9.16.
Thanks & Regards,
Harshitha
Steps to Reproduce
On Microsoft.Android.Ref31.0.101-preview.9.16
Did you find any workaround?
No response
Relevant log output
No response
Activity
jpobst commentedon Mar 1, 2024
@pjcollins @jonathanpeppers It looks like we need to update the license we are shipping in our workload packs:
https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Android.Ref.34
jonathanpeppers commentedon Mar 1, 2024
There are definitely files in our MSBuild packs that are under the old Xamarin license. Anything from monodroid or androidtools, for example. We could make the license for the Ref & Runtime packs MIT, though?
I also wonder if the Xamarin license should be updated to something else now.
@jonpryor probably has comments.
Harshitha1369 commentedon Mar 1, 2024
Hi,
Would like to add on here, I am looking basically only for this nuget package alone - Microsoft.Android.Ref and specifically this version - 31.0.101-preview.9.16.
On app review, this version(31.0.101-preview.9.16) is not able to categorise to which license it's under and the git repo of it is not found for this version. So I am blocked until I get the main license file of this version 31.0.101-preview.9.16.
https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Android.Ref/31.0.101-preview.9.16
This is tagged with .Net 6.0
https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Android.Ref/31.0.101-preview.9.16/License.
Though I upgraded all Xamarin packages, this version always comes up in mono.android.jar file. So, I need the license file link of this version(31.0.101-preview.9.16) in order to validate, if License.md file of this version in git has MIT license.
jonathanpeppers commentedon Mar 1, 2024
@Harshitha1369 I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish, but we certainly aren't going to go back and retroactively update old packages with new licenses. We could fix the license going forward in .NET 9, though.
Of course, you can always go build from source yourself and use the artifacts. The MIT-license is meant for this use-case.
That package is from 2021, but perhaps you could try building the repo on the .NET 6 release branch:
Harshitha1369 commentedon Mar 1, 2024
This package here https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Android.Ref/31.0.101-preview.9.16 -
Is this the git repo of released version 31.0.101-preview.9.16 - https://github.com/xamarin/xamarin-android/tree/release/6.0.4xx as mentioned above?
If you can share the git repo of this branch/version tagged 31.0.101-preview.9.16 is good enough for me.
jonathanpeppers commentedon Mar 1, 2024
This is the correct repo, but I have no idea what commit might correspond to 31.0.101-preview.9.16. Check if there is a git sha inside the package? You might also be able to find something in old tags or GitHub releases.
jonathanpeppers commentedon Mar 1, 2024
If you inspect
Mono.Android.dllinside that package with ILSpy, it has:Harshitha1369 commentedon Mar 1, 2024
Thanks a lot. It shows here: https://nuget.info/packages/Microsoft.Android.Ref/31.0.101-preview.9.16 inside
Full Name:Mono.Android, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=84e04ff9cfb79065Strong Name:Yes, version 0.0.0.0AssemblyCompany:Microsoft CorporationAssemblyInformationalVersion:31.0.101.16; git-rev-head:2c2302a; git-branch:release/6.0.1xx-preview9AssemblyMetadata:Key = IsTrimmable, Value = TrueAssemblyProduct:Xamarin.AndroidAssemblyTitle:Mono.Android.dll
So It looks, it's from 6.0.1xx-preview9 branch, is that correct?
jonpryor commentedon Mar 1, 2024
Building off of @jonathanpeppers comment, 31.0.101-preview.9.16 was built from this commit: 2c2302a
@Harshitha1369: Yes, it was built from the release/6.0.1xx-preview9 branch. Also note that this branch is for .NET 6.0 Preview 9; it is not a stable version. Additionally, .NET 6.0 is no longer supported.
How and why are you using 31.0.101-preview.9.16?
Harshitha1369 commentedon Mar 1, 2024
The app is using Xamarin and is not migrated to MAUI as the app is only support and no feature enhancement.
I am not specifically downloading 31.0.101-preview.9.16 this package but it's coming from bin and obj via mono, though all Xamarin package are upgraded to latest.
jonpryor commentedon Mar 1, 2024
@jonathanpeppers wrote:
Boy do I!
Currently, all of our packages contain the same license, and because CI contains commercial repo checkouts, the commercial license is used:
https://github.com/xamarin/xamarin-android/blob/60dbcc9fe482dddc1085c003d3a18209709cbb35/build-tools/create-packs/License.targets#L7
@pjcollins: How hard would it be to instead use different licenses for different NuGet packages? Presumably we'd want something like:
Microsoft.Android.Templates: MITMicrosoft.Android.Ref.*: MIT (it's only reference assemblies!)Microsoft.Android.Runtime.*: MITMicrosoft.Android.Sdk.*: MIT for OSS builds, Commercial for CI builds (what we currently do)If this isn't too difficult, maybe we can do this for .NET 9?
pjcollins commentedon Mar 1, 2024
Should be easy enough to update our packs to contain different license files. For the cases where we want to include MIT (or MIT for OSS) should we just include https://github.com/xamarin/xamarin-android/blob/2bd13c4a00ae78db34663a4b9c7a4c5bfb20c344/LICENSE instead? Do we want to also update the product name in that license file to something like ".NET Android SDK"?
jonpryor commentedon Mar 4, 2024
@pjcollins asked:
Yes, I think that should be fine.
I'm looking for guidance on this, but none of the dotnet repos I looked at have any name listed:
Maybe we should just remove the first two lines, and standardize the 5th (now 3rd) line?
[build] Include MIT license in most NuGet packages (#8787)
[build] Include MIT license in most NuGet packages (#8787)