ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Problems with licenses (GPL, LGPL) and task writing
Date Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:13:22 GMT
Russell Gold <russgold@acm.org> wrote:

> At 7:15 PM +1000 6/15/01, Peter Donald wrote:
>>In any case only code that is ASL and copyright Apache can be placed
>>in Apache CVS (with a few exceptions that are not relevent here).

There is no such things as the ASL, I know some people who get quite
upset if they see this acronym.

> This applies only to source code, I assume?

Not really.

> That is, jars which contain code with different licenses (just as
> jaxp.jar) are permitted?

If you can legally do so.  This is one of the exceptions Peter is
talking about.

The license of JAXP is - in a certain sense - less restrictive than
the GPL.  It's not that we wouldn't want to interoperate with GPLed
software and therfore prohibit its use, it's the GPL that renders this
illegal.

>From section 2 of the GPL:

>> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
>> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply
>> to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But
>> when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
>> work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
>> the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees
>> extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
>> regardless of who wrote it.

So we'd have Ant as an "identifiable section of that work that is not
derived from the Program" (Program is the GPLed code) and an optional
task that falls under the GPL.  Distributing them as separate things
is OK, distributing them together would force Ant itself to be
distributed under the GPL.

Stefan

Mime
View raw message