felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Hargrave <hargr...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-1) Resolve OSGi licensing concerns prior to Incubator graduation
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:52:25 GMT
This just means that only OSGi has the rights to license its 
specification. The terms only apply to the specification (PDF files) and 
do not apply to the interfaces (e.g. Bundle.java) which are under EPL 1.0 
and they do not apply to implementations of the specification (e.g. 

It does give Apache the rights to redistribute the specification (PDFs) 
but not the rights to alter the license of the specification. This should 
be highly consistent with licenses on other specification documents like a 
JSR specification and are probably more generous since you get 
redistribution rights.

But please do consult with Apache legal advisors to see if there are any 
problems with this license for Apache. If Apache does have any issues or 
concerns, please bring them to me so that I can take them to OSGi for 
possible resolution.

BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788

Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> 
Sent by: Niclas Hedhman <hedhman@gmail.com>
2005-12-03 02:27 AM
Please respond to


Re: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-1) Resolve OSGi licensing concerns prior to 
Incubator graduation

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 12:10, BJ Hargrave (JIRA) wrote:
> 2. The OSGi Specification License 1.0 for the R4 specification states: 
> OSGi Alliance ("OSGi Alliance") hereby grants you a fully-paid,
> non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited license (without the
> right to sublicense), under the OSGi Alliance's applicable intellectual
> property rights to view, download, and reproduce the OSGi Specification
> ("Specification") which follows this License Agreement ("Agreement")." 
> full license text in in the front matter of the OSGi R4 specification
> docyuments.

The above paragraph mentions without right to sublicense" and IMHO it is 
totally clear what this means in the implementation context, and I would 
recommend you to run it with legal-discuss@ just to make sure, that there 
no unwanted restrictions on downstream users.


View raw message