ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/com/oreilly/servlet
Date Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:41:26 GMT
Jason Hunter wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> Good to hear from you.  If you don't mind, let's hash out the issues.

I don't mind at all :)

> (People not interested in open source licensing issues can tune out.)
> I'm curious about your justifications and reasonings (and those of the
> community at large) since I believe open source will more and more
> involve this kind of intermingling between different projects, and I
> don't think one project fully absorbing the other project is always the
> right approach.

Careful: we are talking about "source code" hosted under "Apache CVS"
with "Apache License" up front.

We are not talking about project collaboration, which is a totally
different thing.
> > We have been preaching for years now that all java code donations to the
> > ASF must:
> >
> >  1) contain the Apache license "only"!
> Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?  There are a few ways to
> read it.

The ASF members have stated the Apache project hosted under Apache CVS
can contain source code that has only the Apache License or binaries
that are redistributable under the Apache conditions and don't impose
any viral contact with our code.

This is to avoid possible future problems with APL/GPL interaction,
which generates much friction and it's very likely to spread
uncontrolled and touch every part of our software.

In your case, I agree, this is different: you want to have multiple
licensing and multiple copyrights.
> >  2) have a org.apache.* package name
> Of course Ant uses SAX, JAXP, and other libraries that aren't in
> org.apache.* (some aren't even open source) but that's acceptable
> because they're included as compiled JAR files.  That means an
> acceptable approach when one project doesn't want to be "absorbed" into
> another is to bundle snapshots of that project into a JAR.  Maybe that's
> the right approach for me to take; I just thought people might
> appreciate having the code local to peruse, and even modify if they
> wanted.

Yes, and I welcome your friendly reasoning here, I just want to make
sure everybody is happy with that.
> > >   I put
> > >   it under the Apache license of course, and added the ASF as an
> > >   additional copyright holder.
> >
> > Again, this is unusual and unfair for the other donated projects. All
> > donations imply that you move copyright to the ASF which provides legal
> > coverage for you.
> I'm interested in your justification here.  Having the ASF as an
> additional copyright holder grants them *just as many rights* as if they
> were the sole copyright holder.  Having me as a copyright holder simply
> grants me those same rights concurrently (allowing in this case me to
> publish MailMessage in my book without printing the ASF copyright on the
> top of the code listing).  What's do you see as the harm?

No, no harm at all.

> The Linux
> kernel has code under many different copyrights, after all.  I made sure
> to grant ASF copyright here so the license could be upgraded by the ASF
> as necessary in the future without contacting me.

Ok, great points.

I admit we didn't think about "multiple copyright" statements, but only
about multiple licensing schemes, but you are right, we should look
forward for that.
> > Now, why should you differ?
> Why should Jakarta be different than Linux?  :-)

Where isn't Apache GPL-ed? :-)
> > Again, please, don't get me wrong: you know how strongly believe in
> > giving full credits to who deserves it
> Sure.  I wasn't doing this for credit's sake.  I was doing this so I
> could reprint the code in my book without being bound by the Apache
> license.

Ok, sorry, didn't understand that.
> > So, again, while I fully appreciate your code donation, I'd like to
> > kindly invite you to rethink about your licensing issues now that you
> > know these things.
> Just FYI, I put it under the Apache license with ASF as a copyright
> holder.  The issues we're discussing are the alternate package naming
> and joint copyright, things which are allowed in other open source
> projects.  I'm happy to abide by the rules of this project, but first
> let's hash out the reasonings.  :-)

Very good points and I would like to thank you very much for your kind
and friendly response (usually legal issues are nasty and generate lots
of unnecessary friction).

I see two points:

1) having multiple copyright holders doesn't harm the ASF since both
parties have full legal control.

I personally think you have a great point on this.

2) since both parties have full control, the package naming issue is of
second importance since the copyright holder can decide to modify the
code at will to conform to its internal working practices.

I assume the above would not cause harm to any of the parties involved.

So, I'm going to fire this up the chain and see what the members think,
will this be ok with you?

Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------

View raw message