incubator-jspwiki-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juergen Weber <>
Subject Re: Contributed Plugins License
Date Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:37:10 GMT

I browsed some Apache FAQs and the thing doesn't seem easy anymore, I'm not a
lawyer 8-(

I think finally Contributed Plugins should also be together with JSPWiki
sources on Apache servers. I guess that means contributions have to be
Apache licensed, anyway.

"Any code submitted to the Apache project must be compatible with the Apache
License, and the act of submission must be viewed as an implicit license of
the submitted code to the Apache Software Foundation. "

The most similar to JSPWiki Plugins seem to be Maven plugins. And they link
to the committer FAQ from
Ant say: 
"Because the Gnu GPL license immediately extends to cover any larger
application (or library, in the case of LGPL) into which it is incorporated,
the Ant team cannot incorporate any task based upon GPL or LGPL source into
the Ant codebase. You are free to submit it, but it will be politely and
firmly rejected. "

See also this draft:

I understand contributors would have to sign Individual Contributor License

So I'd suggest you contact the apache people who helped you move JSPWiki to

In the mean time I'd suggest to put this text on the Contributor Wiki page:
As JSPWiki is under Apache license we ask you to put your contributed
plugins under Apache license, too. So other JSPWiki users can legally use
your plugins together with JSPWiki.

You might also consider create a project for your plugin on, or another hoster for open source project and link to it from here.

Greetings, Juergen

Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> This is an interesting question.  I don't think we can in any way force
> people to adopt some particular license (though since you cannot
> relicense, I'm not sure how the different viral licenses would work - a
> GPL plugin for an Apache-based program could certainly not enforce us to
> obey the GPL).
> It might be a good idea to add instructions how to license your code under
> the ASL to the ContributedPlugins, but we should be careful not to imply
> that it's the only option. But I think it might be a good idea to
> encourage people to declare at least some sort of a license.
> Could please write up something, J├╝rgen?
> /Janne
> On 18 Dec 2009, at 17:17, Juergen Weber wrote:
>> While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included
>> ( this is different for
>> Contributed Plugins.
>> Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none
>> contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an
>> unsatisfactory state of affairs.
>> I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at
>> A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would
>> de
>> facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and
>> include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily
>> take a plugin into core.
>> Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g.
>> commercial, Apache, ...
>> Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force
>> contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a
>> new
>> one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment
>> form you have to license attachments to Apache.
>> What do you think?
>> Thanks,
>> Juergen
>> -- 
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at

View this message in context:
Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at

View raw message