incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:41:25 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message