www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Schmidt <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache's LGPL Policy
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:04:03 GMT
On 8/2/05, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > Actually, I did manage to get the FSF to even agree that distributing
> > a single .jar that contains both the Apache-developed program and
> > LGPL-licensed library would not have any impact on how we could
> > license the Apache stuff.  In fact, a strong argument can be made that
> > the single .jar is simply a collective work that can be licensed
> > however we like (e.g. Apache)
> > So, if Apache continues to have a policy that does not allow
> > distribution of components that require licensing terms
> > beyond those stated in the Apache License v.2, then we can't
> > do co-distribution.
> Said policy does not and never has existed, therefore it cannot be
> "continued", since continuation requires prior existence.  It was discussed,
> and repeatedly pointed out that such a policy would make it impossible to
> ship all but the most trivial Java programs.  Tomcat, JAMES, and others, for
> example, all have dependencies upon Sun packages, e.g., JavaMail, JAF, etc.
> We do have to put the licensing information into the NOTICE.TXT file,
> though.

Just to clarify: licensing terms do NOT belong in the NOTICE file. 
That file is only for attribution (e.g. "This product includes
software developed by xxx").  Any other licenses should be copied into
the LICENSE file.  You may have meant to say that, but I want to make
sure anyone else reading it understands as well.

You say there has never been a policy; I called it a "policy" because
I of what I heard from several different Board members over the years.
 In any case, you seem to believe that it is fine for projects to
distribute software from Apache servers requires terms beyond the
Apache license; if so, I'd be interested in your understanding of
where you draw the line on what licenses are okay -- just Sun
licenses?  My view is that the current policy/rule/guideline is that
any license that allows redistribution under terms already included in
the Apache License is fine.  I'm not saying that every project has
followed this, but that this has been a clear message from the Board
in the past.

Of course, I'm not sure how the membership and directors feel about
it, but regardless of what the so-called policy has been in the past,
we can always make a new one.  I have a few ideas.

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