harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Date Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:24:06 GMT


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> , that that can
>>>>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>>>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a

>>>>>> say in
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would 
>>>>> at a minimum
>>>>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and 
>>>>> then apache
>>>>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache 
>>>>> license, and
>>>>> what that means is rather clear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it 
>>>> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license 
>>>> of a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a 
>> license  from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee, 
>> so I would guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have a 
>> say on what a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
> 
> no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you 
> can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under 
> different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a 
> OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.

I wasn't suggesting that you could revoke it.

My thoughts were along the lines of what the apache license says - that 
each contributor gives each recipient some rights for their contribution 
according to the terms of the license.

If a recipient does not follow the terms of the license, what prevents 
any of the contributors from taking action, since the license is between 
each contributor and the recipient.  The ASF is *a* contributor too, and 
therefore can take action because we have standing, but why can't each 
each contributor act independently if the terms of the license are 
violated for their particular contribution?

> 
>> I dunno.  I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
> 
> The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going 
> wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.
> 
> Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage 
> dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.
> 

Except if the terms of the license under which you provided the code 
aren't followed, right?

geir

Mime
View raw message