felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: License issue
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:24:18 GMT
Sorry for the confusion of my response.

The question was about having dependencies from Felix (subproject) code 
to MPL or CPL licensed code.

My response was intended to mean that Apache legal says that it is ok to 
have binary MPL or CPL products in our releases, but not source versions 
of them.

This is an Apache issue, not a general open source issue. The source use 
of these licenses requires some degree of reciprocity, which is why they 
cannot be included in Apache releases.

-> richard

Rob Walker wrote:
> Not sure I agree with that view personally:
> CPL is definitely a license which includes source use - it's our base 
> license for open source work.
> Also, would be rather odd if they didn't allow source use since I was 
> under impression that both are on the list of approved open source 
> licenses:
> http://opensource.org/
> But then IA-D-NAL .... D = definitely!
> - R
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> By the looks of it from this link:
>>    http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>> Both MPL and CPL are binary only licenses. So, we cannot include the 
>> source in our releases, but can include binaries...if I understand it 
>> correctly.
>> -> richard
>> Manuel Santillan wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> IANAL, o I'm a bit confused about licenses. Is it possible to commit
>>> code that depends on MPL'd code(Mozilla license)? What about
>>> dependencies on CPL'd code?
>>> Thanx!!
>>> //manuel

View raw message