Mailing-List: contact community-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: community@apache.org
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:21:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Classpath Licensing
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
To: community@apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPKECDAAAB.noel@devtech.com>
Message-Id: <89EE28AE-3D67-11D7-B26F-000393753936@apache.org>

On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 12:30  PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I believe Classpath has a special exception for distribution, but,
>> AIUI, that isn't typical of FSF packages.
>
> I agree.  The only issue for me is whether or not the Classpath 
> packages are
> a suitable special case that we can use.

The answer is no.  Look, this should be clear from the license text.
The exception refers to the effect of linking done by the Classpath
code, which is a neutral third-party.  The exception is to allow the
neutral third-party (GPL code) to cause other object code to be
combined without altering the license of that object code.  It does
not make an exception to any direct use of the GPL code itself,
such as if some part of our code did an import of one of the classes
within the GPL library.

> As to the rest, you have a valid point that the FSF holds a copyright 
> on the
> code.  However, Nic is entitled to multi-license his own code (not all 
> of
> Classpath, but I was specifically thinking of his implementation of 
> JavaMail
> and Chris' implementations of JavaMail handlers), and thus it seems 
> that
> their representation would have effect.

Nic just repeated what the license says.  It has no relevance to a
situation where one java app/library imports from an LGPL class.

> Personally, I'd prefer for them to license their source under the ASF
> license, but as long as we can use their binaries, that suffices.

We can *use* their binaries.  We cannot introduce features that depend
only on their binaries (or their source code, for that matter).  Doing
so restricts the distribution of our entire product to LGPL or GPL,
which is why it is forbidden within the ASF.

If the developer dual-licenses the code in a form that is non-viral,
such as the Apache or MPL 1.1 licenses, then we can depend on it.

....Roy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org