Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: 209.237.226.90 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of brian@collab.net)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:08:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: log4net related IP questions
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20050309151246.03dff2d0@mail.qos.ch>
Message-ID: <20050309175920.A6613@paz.hyperreal.org>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20050309151246.03dff2d0@mail.qos.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-578326129-1110420499=:6613"

--0-578326129-1110420499=:6613
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Ceki [iso-8859-1] G�lc� wrote:
> I am quite embarrassed to ask but what is the foundation's position on 
> distributing code which depends on the following environments?
>
> - Mono 1.0 (GPL)
> - Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 & 1.1 & Compact Framework 1.0 (Closed Source)
> - Microsoft SSCLI 1.0 (Shared Source)

It's not a problem, even if it's a runtime dependency.  The only problem 
arises if the use of any third-party software during development, build, 
or use has an effect on the license of the Apache work itself, usually by 
saying the Apache work is a "derivative work".  A simple dependency would 
not cause that.  Bundling one of those in with a release almost certainly 
would, and our current policy (IIRC) is to not redistribute separate 
third-party works from apache.org machines, even if they are under open 
source licenses.

> It seems very similar to the situation encountered by all our projects based 
> on the Java language which is licensed under somewhat ambiguous terms.

There is no risk in simply implementing your own ideas in Java.  It's the 
implementation of specifications, be they OASIS or JCP or defined 
where ever, that one should think about the IP issues involved.

> Nicko Cadell has compiled a list [1] of additional log4net dependencies. 
> Could someone of a higher authority confirm that they are OK? In particular, 
> log4net is built using GPL-licensed Nant, is that a problem from the 
> foundation's point of view?
>
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4net-dev&m=111037622301905&w=2

It's not a problem. (An aside - let me get this straight - someone took 
Ant, converted it from Java to C#, and relicensed under the GPL?  The 
nerve of some people!).  However, to clarify:

> The release package includes project files for Microsoft Visual Studio
> .NET, however this is not a dependency.

Does this mean these are files copied from (perhaps modified, perhaps not) 
the Microsoft product, which originally carried a Microsoft copyright?  Or 
are these freshly created files simply designed to work with VS.NET?

 	Brian


--0-578326129-1110420499=:6613
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
--0-578326129-1110420499=:6613--