ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Hunter <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/com/oreilly/servlet
Date Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:39:24 GMT
> > > 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.

Right, (as I understand it) by keeping my name as an additional
copyright holder, there's no difference to anyone in the world except me
(meaning everyone can use the code with the Apache license, I can't take
that away); the difference for me is that I'm granted the right to use
the code in any way I see fit not necessarily following the Apache
license.  This is really more important when someone GPLs their code
because if they don't retain copyright, then they couldn't use *their
own code* in a commercial project.  The Apache license is so forgiving
that this discussion is almost moot, which is probably why most people
don't mind giving up copyright.

> > >  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.

Me too.

> > 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? :-)

I think I answered my own question earlier for why people retain
copyright on their GPL Linux contributions.  :-)

> > > 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?

Definitely.  I'm sure we're all interested in the outcome.


View raw message