license@apache.org Archives

Re: Licence URIs

2004-05-29T23:12:16Z

On Sun, 23 May 2004, Dave Hodder wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The following URIs still point to the version 1.1 licence:
>
>    * http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt
>
>    * http://www.apache.org/LICENSE
>
>    * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE.txt
>
>    * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE
>
> There are quite a lot of places ( as well as
> external sites) pointing to these URIs, wrongly implying that ASL 1.1 is
> the current Apache licence.  Perhaps they could point to the new licence
> instead?

I've fixed the first two by redirecting them to the /licenses/ directory.
The second two are needed as a historical document.  The only links that
should refer to them are historical.  Any others should be fixed.  (If
people think there will be lots of confusion, I could rename that file
LICENSE-1.0 and redirect the old links to the /licenses/ directory.  But I
don't think it is necessary.)

I have also fixed all the links I found on httpd.apache.org (although
there may be some more in the docs that I haven't checked).

Thanks for the note.

Joshua.

Licence URIs

2004-05-23T21:20:58Z

Hello,

The following URIs still point to the version 1.1 licence:

   * http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt

   * http://www.apache.org/LICENSE

   * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE.txt

   * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE

There are quite a lot of places ( as well as 
external sites) pointing to these URIs, wrongly implying that ASL 1.1 is 
the current Apache licence.  Perhaps they could point to the new licence 
instead?

Regards,

Dave

Re: Importing SourceForge code that uses ASL

2004-04-14T02:26:42Z

Scott Eade wrote:

> A while back someone apparently forked the Jakarta Turbine JCS project 
> to a SourceForge project (http://ehcache.sourceforge.net/) to fix some 
> bugs and to simplify the code base by reducing the scope of the 
> functionality it provides.
> The SF project is listed as being ASL.  The LICENSE.txt file in the 
> most recent release (0.7) is ASL 1.1 (Jakarta commons variation), but 
> about 2 weeks ago this was updated in cvs [1] to assign the copyright 
> to a specific individual (Greg Luck) and the attribution to:
>
> *       "This product includes software developed by Greg Luck
> *       (http://sourceforge.net/users/gregluck) and contributors.
> *       See http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=93232
> *       for a list of contributors"
>
Greg's EHCache program appears to be a derivative work of JCS, and as 
such the copyright attribution should not simply have been changed to 
him.  I would recommend that ASF contact him to ensure that the original 
copyright notices are remaining intact in the work.

> The license included in the source files was updated at the same time.
>
> There is renewed interest in JCS and someone has offered a patch [2] 
> that ports all of the bug fixes in Ehcache back to JCS but I am 
> wondering if there is anything special we need to do to legitimise 
> this code.
>
Based on the information available in SourceForge and the postings on 
the jakarta list, this looks like considerably more than a patch IMHO.

> I am suggesting we do the following:
> 1. Update JCS to use ASL 2.0, as is required anyway.
> 2. Apply the patches and note the Ehcache attribution in NOTICES.txt
>
> Is this the correct approach? 

I think the best option might be to ask Greg and the other SF 
contributors to sign a CLA (and the project committee would then perform 
the review and due diligence ordinarily conducted on contributions).   
The SF notice would be unnecessary if the CLAs were executed.

Re: Apache license, httpclient, and applets

2004-04-13T20:56:50Z

(IANAL and so this is a just a technical note) but doesn't the 
httpclient jar include the license within it's manifest?

if so (and you're using the standard httpclient jar) when you run in an 
applet then the client will download the httpclient.jar containing the 
license before the code can execute, won't it?

- robert

On 13 Apr 2004, at 16:30, Bruce McHaffie wrote:

> Hi, I'd like to use HttpClient (one of the Jakarta commons projects --
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/httpclient/ ) in an applet as part 
> of a
> product feature for the company I work for. The legal department 
> though is
> stuck on the provision in the Apache license that says we have to 
> "...give
> any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this
> License".
>
> Since the product is an applet there's no client-side distribution so 
> legal
> is not sure how to get the license to the end user. Would you be able 
> to
> clarify what measures, if any, are expected to be taken to get the 
> license
> document to end users in an applet/browser environment (with no 
> installed
> client software)?
>
> Bruce.
>

Apache license, httpclient, and applets

2004-04-13T15:30:40Z

Hi, I'd like to use HttpClient (one of the Jakarta commons projects --
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/httpclient/ ) in an applet as part of a
product feature for the company I work for. The legal department though is
stuck on the provision in the Apache license that says we have to "...give
any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this
License".

Since the product is an applet there's no client-side distribution so legal
is not sure how to get the license to the end user. Would you be able to
clarify what measures, if any, are expected to be taken to get the license
document to end users in an applet/browser environment (with no installed
client software)?

Bruce.

Importing SourceForge code that uses ASL

2004-04-02T14:11:00Z

A while back someone apparently forked the Jakarta Turbine JCS project 
to a SourceForge project (http://ehcache.sourceforge.net/) to fix some 
bugs and to simplify the code base by reducing the scope of the 
functionality it provides. 

The SF project is listed as being ASL.  The LICENSE.txt file in the most 
recent release (0.7) is ASL 1.1 (Jakarta commons variation), but about 2 
weeks ago this was updated in cvs [1] to assign the copyright to a 
specific individual (Greg Luck) and the attribution to:

 *       "This product includes software developed by Greg Luck
 *       (http://sourceforge.net/users/gregluck) and contributors.
 *       See http://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=93232
 *       for a list of contributors"


The license included in the source files was updated at the same time.

There is renewed interest in JCS and someone has offered a patch [2] 
that ports all of the bug fixes in Ehcache back to JCS but I am 
wondering if there is anything special we need to do to legitimise this 
code.

I am suggesting we do the following:
1. Update JCS to use ASL 2.0, as is required anyway.
2. Apply the patches and note the Ehcache attribution in NOTICES.txt

Is this the correct approach?

References:
[1] 
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/ehcache/ehcache/LICENSE.txt?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.3
[2] 
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=turbine-jcs-user@jakarta.apache.org&msgNo=403

Thanks,

Scott

-- 
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au

Re: Question on The Apache License 2.0

2004-02-19T14:04:04Z

Thomas DeWeese wrote:
>        [...] where such license applies only to those patent claims
>        licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed
>        by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
>        Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was
>        submitted.
> 
>     The troubling part of this is the 'by combination of their
> Contributions(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was
> submitted.'  The question is does this apply retroactively?

My reading of that phrase is only the patents embodied in the 
Contribution are licensed. The license permits combining the
Contribution with the Work, but does not require licensing of
patents in the (rest of the) Work.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Question on The Apache License 2.0

2004-02-19T13:56:26Z

Hi all,

     We were going over the new license and noticed something that
looked really kind of odd to us, in section 3 it says:

        [...] where such license applies only to those patent claims
        licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed
        by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
        Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was
        submitted.

     The troubling part of this is the 'by combination of their
Contributions(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was
submitted.'  The question is does this apply retroactively?

     So taking the following example:

Company A contributes to project P.

Company B the contributes code that necessarily infringes Company A's
patents to project P.

     Now at this point Company A is now in the position of having
the "combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such
Contribution(s) was submitted" necessarily infringe it's patents.
Meaning in at least some reading of the Apache License that they must
grant a license for the patent.

     I hope this was not the intent as it means that any committer can
instantly gain a license for any patent, expressible in software, held
by another contributor. Simply contribute the infringing code, check
it out and then use that code in what ever product they want to.

     I suspect that there is an intention of limiting 'the Work' to
"the Work as it existed at the time the Contribution(s) was
submitted".

     So going back to the example above Company A would only
be granting the license if it contributed code _after_ Company B
contributed the infringing code, because the Work it submitted the
contribution to did not infringe it's patent, a "newer version" of the
Work does.

     Is there any chance of getting this clarified?

[Fwd]: License Committee report

2004-02-18T01:31:25Z

Forwarding the relevant portions from  the license-discuss list.

----- Forwarded message from Russell Nelson  -----

 > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:20:49 -0500
 > From: Russell Nelson 
 > Subject: License Committee report
 > To: osi@opensource.org
 > CC: license-discuss@opensource.org
 > X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid
 > 
 > I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
 > for the current set of licenses under discussion.  If anybody
 > disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
 > promptly.



 > 
 > --
 > 
 > Revisions to the currently-approved apache license.  They tried
 > introducing a defensive patent license clause, but too many people
 > shot at that flag.
 > 
 > Title: Apache License 2.0 
 > Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7655:200402:jjibkpabgkibfkdpildd
 > License: 
 > Comments:
 >   Brian Behlendorf: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7781:200402:jjibkpabgkibfkdpildd
 >   John Cowan: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7797:200402:jjibkpabgkibfkdpildd
 > Recommend: approval.
 > 
 > --

 > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
                                          
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,                   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,               
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,               
  Kerala, India.                          
                                          
  http://paivakil.port5.com         
                                          
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

RE: Apache License 2.0

2004-02-17T18:33:43Z

> Somebody called  `Rodent of  Unusual Size  '  has
> submitted v. 2.0 of  the license [to the OSI Board.]

> Is this Ken.Coar@Golux.Com a contributor  to apache codebase

See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/
     http://golux.com/coar/

	--- Noel

Re: Apache License 2.0

2004-02-17T12:20:48Z

Antoine L�vy-Lambert said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:25:12PM +0100,:

 > this link http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.html points to a 
 > description of the Apache License 1.1.

That is coz. v. 1.1 license is approved by the OSI as a Open Source
License.
 
 > Do we want opensource.org to publish a different article about the 
 > Apache License 2.0 ?

That  requires approval  of the  license by  the OSI  board.  Somebody
called  `Rodent of  Unusual Size  '  has submitted
v. 2.0 of  the license there, and so far, no  responses are there, for
or against approval.

Is this Ken.Coar@Golux.Com a contributor  to apache codebase or as his
name suggests err  ...  a rat?  Probably, the unsual  name is a reason
for people on the license discuss not commenting, but then it also may
be coz people have nothing *against* approval.

HTH.

-- 
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
                                          
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,                   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,               
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,               
  Kerala, India.                          
                                          
  http://paivakil.port5.com         
                                          
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

Re: [fm #36060] (news-admins) [fmII/contact] Ant 1.6.1 released

2004-02-16T22:23:02Z

Patrick Lenz via RT wrote:

>On Feb 16, 2004, at 17:08, Antoine Levy-Lambert via RT wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I would like to announce the release of ant 1.6.1 but I have the 
>>problem
>>that ant 1.6.1 is under the Apache Software License 2.0 which is not
>>listed in your list of known licenses.
>>    
>>
>
>The Apache License 2.0 has been added.
>
>  
>
Thanks Patrick,


Antoine

see http://freshmeat.net/faq/view/48/#833
now showing Apache License 2.0

Apache License 2.0

2004-02-16T14:25:12Z

Hi,

this link http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.html points to a 
description of the Apache License 1.1.

Do we want opensource.org to publish a different article about the 
Apache License 2.0 ?

Or do we want them to upgrade this link ?

I am asking you this in the context of the Ant 1.6.1 release.

I did not announce this release on freshmeat yet because of the fact 
that they refer indirectly to the Apache License 1.1 only under 
http://freshmeat.net/faq/view/48/#833.



Cheers,

Antoine

Re: New license and copyright dates

2004-02-04T05:04:38Z

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf said on Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:05:44PM -0800,:
>
>  > I personally  don't see  why a file  with "Copyright  1999-2004" is
>  > going to be materially more or less effective
>
> You are  disabled from saying `I  published that before  you did' when
> faced  wiah a  suit by  somebody saying  that your  code  infringes on
> theirs.

Uh, but the artifact being published was published in 2004, not 1998.
Simply putting "1998" into the license does nothing to prove I actually
wrote any of that code in 1998, and it certainly doesn't mean all of it
was available in 1998.  If faced with such a suit, we'd reach back into
the CVS history and/or archive.org and/or our own release packages in our
archive to show what was published when.  Older releases don't suddenly
vanish when a newer release comes out.

> > than having a CVS tree with time stamps going that far back.
>
> The most important record of publication of a document is the document
> itself,  here  the source  code.   Remember  the  copyright /  version
> histories somewhere in the first pages of a book?

This is somewhat academic until we've got cases decided in court to set a
precedent for what's an authoritative claim of date of authorship.  I know
that I'd rather go in to court with a URL to archive.org with a date
showing the release of Apache 0.9.1 in 1995 rather than the current code
showing "copyright 1995-2004".

Books aren't different in publishing their version history.  Most
software, commercial and open source, have changelogs or release notes
that detail what changes were made when.  But knowing when a specific
algorithm or snippet of code is best demonstrated by showing the CVS tree.

In fact, it might behoove us to make regular tape backups of the CVS tree
and submit them to a records firm like Iron Mountain, which can timestamp
them and store them in perpetuity in a way that is irrefutable.  I
understand some companies have done this with the copy of Linux they
downloaded from SCO under the GPL, just in case SCO's lawyers send them a
pay-up letter.

IANAL, TINLA, if it's convenient to keep the year ranges when updating the
license there's probably no harm in doing so.  But I don't see a need to
mandate it.  If others in the ASF disagree, please speak up, I don't want
to be the last word on this.

>  > For  the purposes of anyone trying to follow
>  > the terms of the license, the most recent date is all that matters.
>
> Terms of license, yes. But when it comes to copyright ownerhship and
> infringement claims, it is a different story.

And nothing you put in the license can change that story.  :)

	Brian

Re: New license and copyright dates

2004-02-04T01:29:29Z

Brian Behlendorf said on Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:05:44PM -0800,:

 > I personally  don't see  why a file  with "Copyright  1999-2004" is
 > going to be materially more or less effective

You are  disabled from saying `I  published that before  you did' when
faced  wiah a  suit by  somebody saying  that your  code  infringes on
theirs. 
 
 >  than having a CVS tree with time stamps going that far back.

The most important record of publication of a document is the document
itself,  here  the source  code.   Remember  the  copyright /  version
histories somewhere in the first pages of a book?
 
 > For  the purposes of anyone trying to follow 
 > the terms of the license, the most recent date is all that matters.

Terms of license, yes. But when it comes to copyright ownerhship and
infringement claims, it is a different story.


-- 
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
                                          
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,                   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,               
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,               
  Kerala, India.                          
                                          
  http://in.geocities.com/paivakil         
                                          
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

Re: New license and copyright dates

2004-02-03T06:05:44Z


I personally don't see why a file with "Copyright 1999-2004" is going to
be materially more or less effective than having a CVS tree with time
stamps going that far back.  For the purposes of anyone trying to follow
the terms of the license, the most recent date is all that matters.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it, is my sense - others?

	Brian

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Martin Cooper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One of the things that has been drilled into me over 25+ years as a
> software developer is the importance of keeping the correct copyright
> years in the source code. In particular, I have repeatedly heard from
> corporate lawyers that it is *very* important to keep the original
> copyright year on each file, in addition to the years of subsequent
> modification. The reasons have to do with demonstration of "prior art" in
> intellectual property law and patent litigation.
>
> The reason I am bringing this up here is because I am seeing committers
> across numerous Jakarta projects ignoring this. The problem is spreading
> as people start switching to the new 2.0 license, overwriting the old
> license with the new one using scripts, and thus losing the original
> copyright year.
>
> Rather than try to correct this each time I see it, and wonder how many
> places I'm not catching, I think it would be a good idea if a message was
> sent to committers@ pointing out the importance of this. Unless all those
> corporate lawyers are wrong and / or it doesn't matter to the ASF, that
> is... ;-)
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>

New license and copyright dates

2004-02-03T03:18:04Z

Hello,

One of the things that has been drilled into me over 25+ years as a
software developer is the importance of keeping the correct copyright
years in the source code. In particular, I have repeatedly heard from
corporate lawyers that it is *very* important to keep the original
copyright year on each file, in addition to the years of subsequent
modification. The reasons have to do with demonstration of "prior art" in
intellectual property law and patent litigation.

The reason I am bringing this up here is because I am seeing committers
across numerous Jakarta projects ignoring this. The problem is spreading
as people start switching to the new 2.0 license, overwriting the old
license with the new one using scripts, and thus losing the original
copyright year.

Rather than try to correct this each time I see it, and wonder how many
places I'm not catching, I think it would be a good idea if a message was
sent to committers@ pointing out the importance of this. Unless all those
corporate lawyers are wrong and / or it doesn't matter to the ASF, that
is... ;-)

Thanks.

--
Martin Cooper

Cum And Look Like A P0RN STAR!!!!!!!! mesosphereemigrants

2004-01-30T09:21:08Z



   cumpills2



SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH

BUCKET
LOADS
OF SP.ERM!

�
It's Amazing & Has Finally
Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More
We Guaran.teed It!
Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions

Increased Se.xual Desire &
Performance

- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of
Spe.rm Everywhere

- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms!
Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.

- 100% Mon.ey Back Guar.antee
With Every Order.

�
EJACU.LATE
LIKE A P0RN STAR
MORE INFO HERE

�

�
no more emailz
 


modularrelays

Re: How to use the 2.0 license?

2004-01-25T20:17:06Z

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Vincent Massol wrote:
> I'd like to move the Jakarta Cactus project to use the new 2.0 Apache
> license. However, on http://www.apache.org/licenses/, there is not
> example on how to use it, say in source code.
>
> Could someone show me what header I need to write in my java source code
> to properly include this license?

The full text of the license must exist somewhere in the distribution.
You'd probably want to call it "LICENSE", for example.  For what to put in
each file, read the bottom of LICENSE-2.0, the section that says,
"APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work."

It's more than a one-liner, but a lot smaller than including the original
license in every file, as was the preferred option before.

	Brian

How to use the 2.0 license?

2004-01-25T16:01:19Z

Hi,

I'd like to move the Jakarta Cactus project to use the new 2.0 Apache
license. However, on http://www.apache.org/licenses/, there is not
example on how to use it, say in source code.

Could someone show me what header I need to write in my java source code
to properly include this license?

Thanks
-Vincent

Re: Apache License, Version 2.0

2004-01-24T04:02:10Z

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I am sure they will do so when they have it written down.  Eben
> Moglen takes great care in crafting his opinions, and I don't want
> to rush the FSF into a response that hasn't been carefully
> considered.

Oh, certainly. That's primarily the reason why I suggest that it's
premature to claim that the ASL 2.0 is compatible with the GPL, as it
could be damaging to those works already being distributed under ASL
1.1 which could be considered to be derived works from a GPLed work
via linking or similar.

> Because the patent license of section 3 of the ASL has no bearing on
> software that is being distributed under the GPL.  Whether or not a
> person can distribute a given work under the GPL due to an existing
> patent is not a matter for compatibility between the two licenses;
> it is merely an issue for the work in question.

Hopefully it's clear that when I discuss compatibility between
licenses I am refering to the creation (and distribution) of a
derivative work from two works each under one of the licenses.

[snipped and moved]

> You MUST understand, before going any further, that the question of
> whether a license is compatible with GPL and the question of whether
> a piece of software is compatible with GPL are two SEPARATE issues,
> even if a license can cause incompatibilities. 

I think you want to say whether a piece of software can be distributed
under the GPL instead of being compatible with it. Hopefully my
explanation above clarifies the meaning of compatibility that I am
discussing.

> That does not make the license incompatible.  If the owner of such
> patent were to deny a license to the GPL'd distribution, then that
> work could not be distributed under the GPL.  Since that is true
> regardless of the source of the code, the fact that Apache and GPL
> licenses were combined has no bearing on the result.

> In this case, the license is compatible but insufficient to allow
> GPL distribution.  That is a fact of life and is true of all of the
> licenses that the FSF has already said are compatible with the GPL.

In certain instances, yes, but there is nothing in those licenses
which explicitely causes the result to be undistributable.

The critical question is: does ASL �3 in conjuction with GPL �7
restrict distribution in a case that would not be restricted in the
case of a GPLed work alone?

I'm concerned the framing of the patent reciprocity clause forms a
restriction that isn't present in a GPLed work, and that's the primary
reason why I've suggested that blanket claims of GPL compatibilty be
held off until some sort of statement has been made regarding it.

> Since the Apache License allows that explicitly, it is true for
> anyone who uses the Apache License, and thus the licenses are
> compatible regardless of an opinion.

Were it were explicit! [Explicit in this case being something along
the lines of "software under this license may also be distributed
under the terms of the GPL version 2 or later at your option."]

Don Armstrong

-- 
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien
a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher.
(Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added,
but when nothing else can be removed.)
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Apache License, Version 2.0

2004-01-24T03:27:45Z

On Friday, January 23, 2004, at 06:54  PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> It would be nice to make it publicly available. Could you contact the
> author of the statement so it can be made available?

I am sure they will do so when they have it written down.
Eben Moglen takes great care in crafting his opinions,
and I don't want to rush the FSF into a response that
hasn't been carefully considered.

>> They are compatible.
>
> Could you outline your reasoning why �3 of the ASL doesn't conflict
> with the patent grants required under �7 of the GPL?

Because the patent license of section 3 of the ASL has no bearing on
software that is being distributed under the GPL.  Whether or not a
person can distribute a given work under the GPL due to an existing
patent is not a matter for compatibility between the two licenses;
it is merely an issue for the work in question.

> From my reading, the language of ASL�3 when combined with GPL�7 could
> disallow a class of distribution normally allowed for a GPLed work
> alone.
>
>     If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
>     obligations under this License and any other pertinent
>     obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
>     Program at all. [...] if a patent license would not permit
>     royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
>     receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only
>     way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
>     entirely from distribution of the Program.[GPL �7]
>
>     If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
>     cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
>     or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
>     or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
>     granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as
>     of the date such litigation is filed. [ASL �3]
>
> The conflict primarily revolves around the ability of the distributor
> to distribute an ASL+GPLed work after the distributor has lost a
> patent license due to reciprocity. Since the GPL itself does not
> contain such a restriction, you cannot turn around and license the
> resultant work under the GPL alone as required by GPL �2c, etc.

That does not make the license incompatible.  If the owner of such
patent were to deny a license to the GPL'd distribution, then that work
could not be distributed under the GPL.  Since that is true regardless
of the source of the code, the fact that Apache and GPL licenses were
combined has no bearing on the result.

You MUST understand, before going any further, that the question of
whether a license is compatible with GPL and the question of whether
a piece of software is compatible with GPL are two SEPARATE issues,
even if a license can cause incompatibilities.  In this case, the
license is compatible but insufficient to allow GPL distribution.
That is a fact of life and is true of all of the licenses that the
FSF has already said are compatible with the GPL.

>> Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an
>> opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work
>> consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be
>> distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there really
>> isn't anything to be discussed.
>
> Unfortunately, Apache's opinion isn't enough, unless the ASL is only
> going to be applied to works (and combined works) wholly owned by
> ASF. The opinion of the copyright holder of the GPLed work being
> combined with an ASLed work is also at issue here. As the FSF is the
> copyright holder on quite a large number of GPLed works, as well as
> the principle enforcer of the GPL, their opinion was sought as a
> reference point.

Of course, which is why their opinion was sought already.  License
compatibility with GPL is very simple: all derivative work of GPL'd
source must remain GPL'd.  Since the Apache License allows that
explicitly, it is true for anyone who uses the Apache License, and
thus the licenses are compatible regardless of an opinion.  There
is nothing more I can do to make it so.

....Roy

Re: Apache License, Version 2.0

2004-01-24T02:54:42Z

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Yes, though I don't think it was public.

It would be nice to make it publicly available. Could you contact the
author of the statement so it can be made available?

> They are compatible. 

Could you outline your reasoning why �3 of the ASL doesn't conflict
with the patent grants required under �7 of the GPL?

From my reading, the language of ASL�3 when combined with GPL�7 could
disallow a class of distribution normally allowed for a GPLed work
alone.

    If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
    obligations under this License and any other pertinent
    obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
    Program at all. [...] if a patent license would not permit
    royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
    receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only
    way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
    entirely from distribution of the Program.[GPL �7]

    If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
    cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
    or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
    or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
    granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as
    of the date such litigation is filed. [ASL �3]

The conflict primarily revolves around the ability of the distributor
to distribute an ASL+GPLed work after the distributor has lost a
patent license due to reciprocity. Since the GPL itself does not
contain such a restriction, you cannot turn around and license the
resultant work under the GPL alone as required by GPL �2c, etc.

> Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an
> opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work
> consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be
> distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there really
> isn't anything to be discussed.

Unfortunately, Apache's opinion isn't enough, unless the ASL is only
going to be applied to works (and combined works) wholly owned by
ASF. The opinion of the copyright holder of the GPLed work being
combined with an ASLed work is also at issue here. As the FSF is the
copyright holder on quite a large number of GPLed works, as well as
the principle enforcer of the GPL, their opinion was sought as a
reference point.

Don Armstrong

-- 
"The question of whether computers can think is like the question of
whether submarines can swim."
 -- Edsgar Dijkstra

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Apache License, Version 2.0

2004-01-24T02:29:29Z

On Friday, January 23, 2004, at 06:13  PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Has Eben Moglen (or the FSF) commented on the compatibility with ASL
> 2.0 and the GPL, specifically regarding the interaction of �3 of the
> ASL with �7 of the GPL? [I personally haven't seen such a public
> commentary regarding the recent revisions of the license and their GPL
> compatibility if they do exist...]

Yes, though I don't think it was public.

> Until he (or the FSF) has, calling the ASL 2.0 a GPL compatible
> license is premature for the reasons outlined in
> <20040109231506.GC30397@donarmstrong.com> as well as in
> <16309.18688.540989.283163@new.law.columbia.edu>, I'd suggest avoiding
> caracterizing it as such until he (or the FSF) makes some sort of
> statement on the issue.

They are compatible.  Whether or not they are considered compatible
by the FSF is an opinion only they can make, but given that a
derivative work consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL
code can be distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion),
there really isn't anything to be discussed.

Cheers,

Roy T. Fielding, co-founder, The Apache Software Foundation
                  (fielding@apache.org)

Re: Apache License, Version 2.0

2004-01-24T02:13:50Z

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The result is a license that is compatible with other open source
> licenses, such as the GPL, and yet still remains true to the
> original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative
> development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations.

Has Eben Moglen (or the FSF) commented on the compatibility with ASL
2.0 and the GPL, specifically regarding the interaction of �3 of the
ASL with �7 of the GPL? [I personally haven't seen such a public
commentary regarding the recent revisions of the license and their GPL
compatibility if they do exist...]

Until he (or the FSF) has, calling the ASL 2.0 a GPL compatible
license is premature for the reasons outlined in
<20040109231506.GC30397@donarmstrong.com> as well as in
<16309.18688.540989.283163@new.law.columbia.edu>, I'd suggest avoiding
caracterizing it as such until he (or the FSF) makes some sort of
statement on the issue.

[That being said, I'm not sure if GPL compatibility is an issue for
works under the ASL, but if it is, it's something that should be
discussed in further detail.]

Don Armstrong

-- 
I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was:
"We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel."
-- Cory Doctorow

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Apache License, Version 2.0

2004-01-24T01:34:36Z

Thank you for all of the comments.  The 2.0 license was officially
approved by The Apache Software Foundation on January 21, 2004, and
will be mandated across all Apache projects starting on March 1st.

The final copy can be found at

     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
or
     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

The goals of this license revision have been to reduce the number
of frequently asked questions, to allow the license to be reusable
without modification by any project (including non-ASF projects),
to allow the license to be included by reference instead of listed
in every file, to clarify the license on submission of contributions,
to require a patent license on contributions that necessarily
infringe the contributor's own patents, and to move comments
regarding Apache and other inherited attribution notices to a
location outside the license terms (the NOTICE file).

The result is a license that is compatible with other open source
licenses, such as the GPL, and yet still remains true to the original
goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development
across both nonprofit and commercial organizations.


Cheers,

Roy T. Fielding, co-founder, The Apache Software Foundation
                  (fielding@apache.org)

Re: Implied grant?

2004-01-23T21:39:22Z

This list was created for public comments on the proposed 2.0 license.
Now that it has been approved by the board (more details forthcoming), we
should probably shut this list down and move general discussion about
Apache licensing policies to the more generic "licensing@apache.org".

I'll forward your note there and respond.

	Brian

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> How do we interpret a project, e.g., such as AAA4Avalon on SourceForge,
> which uses the Apache License, but for which we do not have a CLA or
> Software Grant?  There is some confusion, with some people considering the
> use of the Apache Software License to be an implied grant, and others being
> more conservative.
>
> 	--- Noel
>

Don't Want To Be Busted ? ? ? . . . . . . . . rationales

2004-01-23T17:02:16Z



  cleanactpro


Keep Your Job - Keep Your Marriage - Keep Out Of Trouble



DID YOU
KNOW!



That anyone who uses your computer can see what websites you've
visited? 

And that simply deleting history only removes part of the records. 

If someone starts typing a web site, your browser will recall old sites
you've visited? 

Your boss or wife can start typing "www.dateline.com" and the browser
will recall "www.datingclub.com" 

Every picture on every site you've ever visited has been copied to your
hard drive?

Deleting the cache does not permanently remove them! 

And there are many more ways you are secretly tracked... 



Download Our Software
Today To Be Safe











No More
Emailz Plz



restricted , inserting

Re: Ejacu.late Like A P0RN Star!

2004-01-23T14:46:40Z



   cumpills2



SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH

BUCKET
LOADS
OF SP.ERM!

�
It's Amazing & Has Finally
Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More
-We Guaranteed It!
Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions.

Increased Sex.ual Desire &
Performance.

- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of
Spe.rm Everywhere.

- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms!
Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.

- 100% Mon.ey Back Guarantee
With Every Order.

�
EJACU.LATE
LIKE A P0RN STAR
READ
MORE INFO HERE

�

�
no more emailz

Implied grant?

2004-01-22T14:21:21Z

How do we interpret a project, e.g., such as AAA4Avalon on SourceForge,
which uses the Apache License, but for which we do not have a CLA or
Software Grant?  There is some confusion, with some people considering the
use of the Apache Software License to be an implied grant, and others being
more conservative.

	--- Noel

Don't Want To Be Busted ? ? ? . . . . . . . . plums

2004-01-22T12:13:37Z



  cleanactpro


Keep Your Job - Keep Your Marriage - Keep Out Of Trouble



DID YOU
KNOW!



That anyone who uses your computer can see what websites you've
visited? 

And that simply deleting history only removes part of the records. 

If someone starts typing a web site, your browser will recall old sites
you've visited? 

Your boss or wife can start typing "www.dateline.com" and the browser
will recall "www.datingclub.com" 

Every picture on every site you've ever visited has been copied to your
hard drive?

Deleting the cache does not permanently remove them! 

And there are many more ways you are secretly tracked... 



Download Our Software
Today To Be Safe











No More
Emailz Plz



Conakry , overrules

Don't get busted ! ! . . . . . . . . . steaming

2004-01-21T09:32:49Z



  cleanactpro


Keep Your Job - Keep Your Marriage - Keep Out Of Trouble



DID YOU
KNOW!



That anyone who uses your computer can see what websites you've
visited? 

And that simply deleting history only removes part of the records. 

If someone starts typing a web site, your browser will recall old sites
you've visited? 

Your boss or wife can start typing "www.dateline.com" and the browser
will recall "www.datingclub.com" 

Every picture on every site you've ever visited has been copied to your
hard drive?

Deleting the cache does not permanently remove them! 

And there are many more ways you are secretly tracked... 



Download Our Software
Today To Be Safe











No More
Emailz Plz



controller , dotted

Re: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0

2004-01-21T01:11:57Z

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I would like to support all this. Whitespace is not a minor issue.
> > Inconsistencies wreak havoc on CVS diffs. It seems that some
> > text editors try to correct these inconsistencies (e.g. to change
> > any 3-space indentation back to 2-space indentation) which results
> > in an unnecessary and confusing diff.
> >
> > * The main license has 2-space indentation which is great. However
> > some lines have an odd number of spaces, e.g. the first line here
> > incorrectly has 3 spaces while the second line correctly has 6 spaces.
> 
> The entire license has 3-space indentation, except where indentation
> is being used to show hierarchy.  My editor does not suffer from the
> problem you describe and I do not expect anyone else to be editing
> the license text (at least not with a broken editor).

The reason for my comments about inconsistent whitespace is that
we have seen big troubles in CVS with the license header at the
top of *.java files etc. Some people have text editors that have
capabilities to automatically "correct" whitespace and this causes
mangled diffs.

--David

Re: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0

2004-01-21T01:05:06Z

> I would like to support all this. Whitespace is not a minor issue.
> Inconsistencies wreak havoc on CVS diffs. It seems that some
> text editors try to correct these inconsistencies (e.g. to change
> any 3-space indentation back to 2-space indentation) which results
> in an unnecessary and confusing diff.
>
> * The main license has 2-space indentation which is great. However
> some lines have an odd number of spaces, e.g. the first line here
> incorrectly has 3 spaces while the second line correctly has 6 spaces.

The entire license has 3-space indentation, except where indentation
is being used to show hierarchy.  My editor does not suffer from the
problem you describe and I do not expect anyone else to be editing
the license text (at least not with a broken editor).

....Roy

Re: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0

2004-01-21T00:59:08Z

> A very minor comment: I think the paragraphs need to be rejustified
> before the final release.  (Some of the lines in Section 1 are 77
> columns wide where as the first line of Section 7 is wrapping at less
> than 73 columns.)

They were manually justified in order to make them easier to read,
depending more on the length and substance of the paragraph rather
than a mechanical column number.

The nominal indentation is three spaces on both margins and the 
numbering
is presented as if it were an outline, again for ease of reading.
That is simply a personal preference of mine.

> I notice the sample NOTICE file has differing justification between
> notices too, and that the Apache acknowledgement changes from
>
>     This product includes software developed by the
>     Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> in Apache Software License v1.1 to
>
>     This product includes software developed by
>     The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>     ^
> in Apache License v2.0.  (Note the word "the" has changed to start with
> an upper case letter.)

The legal name of the foundation is "The Apache Software Foundation".

....Roy

Don't get busted ! ! . . . . . . . . . specially

2004-01-20T12:33:29Z



  cleanactpro


Keep Your Job - Keep Your Marriage - Keep Out Of Trouble



DID YOU
KNOW!



That anyone who uses your computer can see what websites you've
visited? 

And that simply deleting history only removes part of the records. 

If someone starts typing a web site, your browser will recall old sites
you've visited? 

Your boss or wife can start typing "www.dateline.com" and the browser
will recall "www.datingclub.com" 

Every picture on every site you've ever visited has been copied to your
hard drive?

Deleting the cache does not permanently remove them! 

And there are many more ways you are secretly tracked... 



Download Our Software
Today To Be Safe











No More
Emailz Plz



structural , oiliest

G'day mate, hows things?

2004-01-16T12:31:43Z



   hardonoil1



MASSIVE
ROCK-SOLID EREC.TIONS

IN
60 SECONDS OR LESS!
ITS
HERE THE NEW

V P R X
OIL

- Immediate Rock-Solid Erec.tions

- Total, Oversize Arousal

- Double-Strength Org.asms

- Super Staying Power

- Maximum Sexual Health

- Increase the Size and Intensity
of your Erec.tions!

- Completely Safe and Effective
Lubri.cant!
READ
MORE INFO HERE







�
no more emailz

Fwd: Ejacu.late Like A P0RN Star

2004-01-15T16:21:42Z



   cumpills2



SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH

BUCKET
LOADS
OF SP.ERM!

�
It's Amazing & Has Finally
Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More
-We Guaranteed It!
Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions.

Increased Sex.ual Desire &
Performance.

- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of
Spe.rm Everywhere.

- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms!
Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.

- 100% Mon.ey Back Guarantee
With Every Order.

�
EJACU.LATE
LIKE A PO.RN STAR
READ
MORE INFO HERE

�

�
no more emailz

Fwd: Ejacu.late Like A P0RN Star

2004-01-15T12:00:12Z



   cumpills2



SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH

BUCKET
LOADS
OF SP.ERM!

�
It's Amazing & Has Finally
Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More
-We Guaranteed It!
Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions.

Increased Sex.ual Desire &
Performance.

- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of
Spe.rm Everywhere.

- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms!
Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.

- 100% Mon.ey Back Guarantee
With Every Order.

�
EJACU.LATE
LIKE A PO.RN STAR
READ
MORE INFO HERE

�

�
no more emailz

Re: Herba.l Products of the year, 2003

2004-01-15T09:12:52Z

Welcome
To Herbal World!

Check Out Just Some Of Our Amazing
Products.

Their all 100% Natural With Our
100% Mo.ney Back Guaran.tee!
HGH:

Turns Back Your Aging Process Naturally! Look 20 YEARS YOUNGER!

READ
MORE INFO HERE
MAGNA-RX
PATCH:
 Increase Pe.nis
Size By 2�� To
4��.Your Pe.nis Will Be Thicker And Fuller.

READ
MORE INFO HERE
ALPHA MALE
PLUS:
 Maintain harder,
stronger erect.ions
for hours. Have amazing se.x up to 20 times per day.

READ
MORE INFO HERE
HERBAL-RX
DIET PATCH: 
Advanced appetite
suppressant,
metabolism booster, and energy enhancer.....all in one!

READ
MORE INFO HERE
Real Doctors, Real Science, Real Results!






no more emailz