geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Bernard Stefani <Jean-Bernard.Stef...@inrialpes.fr>
Subject Re: Réf. : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb ( was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Date Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:40:16 GMT
Brian,

We seem to be on the same wavelength :-)

The licensing scheme you propose (ObjectWeb license on the model of the ASF
one, with mention of Apache and the ASF replaced with ObjectWeb) is
definitely an excellent way to go. However, it is not clear that we can
adopt it because ObjectWeb is essentially a contract among members, not a
moral person (and therefore it is not clear that it can hold a copyright).
INRIA, being a not-for-profit organization, could play the role of a
copyright holder in lieu of ObjectWeb, but it is not clear our corporate
contributors, especially, would relinquish their copyright to INRIA.

So we may have to stay with BSD for that reason. Would that be OK with ASF
? If it is, I think  we in ObectWeb can reach a prompt decision on the
issue at our next College meeting, as I mentioned.

Best regards,

Jean-Bernard

At 13:55 -0700 3/09/03, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>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.
>
>Terrific.
>
>	Brian



*************************************************************
Jean-Bernard STEFANI
Research Director, SARDES Project
INRIA Rhône-Alpes
655, avenue de l'Europe
Montbonnot
38334 St Ismier Cedex
France
tel : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 57
fax : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 52
email : Jean-Bernard.Stefani@inria.fr
*************************************************************




Mime
View raw message