www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianugo Rabellino <gian...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Licensing and modified GPLs (again!)
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2003 21:45:46 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> The question is: is that enough to defeat GPL's virality? I'm starting to
> Defeat isn't quite the right word.  It is actually distributed under two
> licenses, one for unmodified and one for with-modifications.  The Apache
> license also does that, though in our case they are just two clauses in
> a single license.

OK, I see: it's simply not GPL at all.

>>  think that it might well be the case: as long as you don't modify 
>> Kawa or Qexo, those classes would be used just like any Sun classes so 
>> if it's OK to include a Sun jar it might be OK to include even 
>> Kawa/Qexo. Still, they are shipping even a copy of the GPL2 license 
>> with the distribution, so I'm not sure it would be enough.
> It is enough.  To be fair, the distribution should always be paired with
> a license file that describes the terms in effect.  A jar file would
> list the simple terms described, with a link back to the source.  A
> source distribution would have to include the GPL2 license inside,
> though that alone does not make a distribution viral.

Yes, this makes sense. In case we go forward with this experiment I'll 
be very careful in dealing with license details.

> Note, however, that I wouldn't recommend this style of licensing to
> everyone.  Among other things, it requires that the original author
> maintain full copyright on the entire work, or at least not accept
> any contributed modifications without an explicit grant of license.

Yes, I share all your concerns. We're having an interesting discussion 
on licensing over there, we'll see how this turns out.

Thanks for now,

Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l.

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

View raw message