geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: Réf. : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb ( was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:55:58 GMT
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Jean-Bernard Stefani wrote:
> I'd like to concur with what Jean-Pierre suggests (i.e. using the BSD
> license as a way for Apache to make use of ObjectWeb components that may be
> of interest such as JOTM or ASM) and add a couple of clarifications.

OK.  One thing I wanted to note is that the BSD license and the Apache
license are pretty much equivalent.  Other projects use the Apache
license for their code, replacing mention of "Apache" with their own
organization, but using the same terms.

> I understand the Apache requirement as 'we (ASF) only want to ship code
> that meets the terms of code reuse, distribution and modification of the
> ASF license, including component or library code which may have originated
> outside of ASF but which is used by the code we ship'.
> This requirement is not met by the LGPL since the LGPL mandates that any
> modification made to the component or library code be made available under
> the same LGPL license. (BTW, this does not mean that the LGPL is viral,
> since it only impacts modifications to the original component code).

The LGPL places a couple of other requirements on the combined work, but
you've got it mostly correct.

> If this reading is correct, I think the best way forward (in order to allow
> ObjectWeb components to be reused in Apache projects) is as Jean-Pierre
> suggests: let us (ObjectWeb) see if we can alter the license of these
> components to a license which is compatible with the Apache requirement and
> would retain the mention of origin and copyright of the ObjectWeb
> contributors. Like Jean-Pierre, I think the BSD license meets both
> constraints so it would be an excellent choice.

Great!  Can I suggest, so as to make it less confusing, you consider using
the Apache license itself, but with mention of Apache and the Apache
Software Foundation replaced with ObjectWeb, et cetera?

> We will in any case discuss the issue at our next College of Architects
> meeting on Sep. 25 and we can take then the decision to release the
> components of interest under an appropriate license to further Apache/OW
> collaboration.



View raw message