Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding?
The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"...
On Jul 29, 2005, at 12:41 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
>
>
>> I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing
>> but intentional obstruction from the FSF. Think about that.
>>
>
> Roy,
>
> I have thought about that, and, speaking for myself, I'd like to
> thank you
> for being helpful for the past ten years. I would appreciate it
> very much
> if
> you'd continue being helpful, and continue showing respect for your
> fellow
> developers, as that is one of the things Apache is about[1] and one of
> things I
> find interesting about it.
>
> I have some trouble understanding the sublicensing provision of the
> Apache
> license v2, and I believe you were one of the persons drafting it, so
> I hope you
> can help me understand it better.
>
> From ASL2:
>
> [...]
>
> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
> Object form,
> made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice
> that is
> included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the
> Appendix below).
>
> [...]
>
> 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
> of this
> License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
> worldwide,
> non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright
> license to
> reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly
> perform,
> sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in
> Source or
> Object form.
>
> I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source
> form and
> distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2
> triple license (like Mozilla)
> on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org.
>
> Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitely
> wants to
> allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different
> license, to
> allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case
> it's the GPL,
> so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in
> some of their
> proprietary products, for example,
>
> Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive,
> i.e. to apply to
> all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement
> to carry
> around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed
> GPL2/ASL2 version
> on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not
> carry the additional
> ASL around when they redistribute further.
>
> The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right,
> I live in
> Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents,
> I have my own
> license to use, and those that received the Works from me are
> protected by the
> liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite
> the termination
> provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL
> does not know the
> concept of patent termination.
>
> Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#what-is-apache-about
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|