www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Dual licensing of code
Date Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:39:44 GMT

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Simon Kitching wrote:

> Hi All,

Sorry for not replying on general@jakarta, I'll say what I was going to 
say there here so experts can laugh and point out how horribly wrong it 
all is.

> I am now looking at writing an article about unit testing and would like
> to be able to provide these classes as code in the public domain, just
> to make it as easy as possible for readers of the article to reuse that
> code.
> Is there any issue with doing this? What is the exact procedure I should
> follow? Should I add something like
>  "This code is also in the public domain."

There are effectively two versions of the code, the ASF copyrighted 
version that lives on svn.apache.org and the Simon Kitching copyrighted 
version that lives wherever.

You are public domaining the Simon Kitching version, which has no ASL 
licence at the top and no impact on the ASF copyrighted version.

One slight nitpick is that you've probably not got your own copy, so I 
imagine you silently roll the ASF copyrighted version (which is all Simon 
Kitching work) into a Simon Kitching version. Technically wrong, but I 
imagine a reality that no one would fuss over (?).

> following the Apache license header or somesuch? I presume I can't just
> delete the apache license header and replace it with such a declaration
> - and I don't really want to; I just want readers of the article to be
> able to reuse these two simple classes without any constraints at all,
> including the requirement to acknowledge Apache code is present.

I thought there were negatives to public-domain, ie) you're not protected 
at all?

Also, I suspect that you can't dual-license (as such) between a licence 
and public domain as public domain is the lack of a licence(?).

I'd drop the ASL licence to get the Simon Kitching version, then BSD 
licence it, dropping the acknowledgement clause. Only worry would be over 
the impropriety of the first step.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message