Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 44797 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2001 12:13:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 44775 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 12:13:23 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to bodewig@apache.org using -f To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Problems with licenses (GPL, LGPL) and task writing References: <01061519154101.00858@helm.realityforge.org> From: Stefan Bodewig Date: 15 Jun 2001 14:13:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: Russell Gold's message of "Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:31:54 -0400" Message-ID: Lines: 43 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Russell Gold 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