www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Cooper <mart...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposed header text at the top of each LICENSE file
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:49:53 GMT


On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Cliff Schmidt wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2005, at 6:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>>> In order to address the current situation of ASF releases including 
>>> third-party components that can/should not be sublicensed under the Apache 
>>> License (such as the CPL and MPL), I would like to propose that we add 
>>> something like the following text to the top of each LICENSE file (which 
>>> currently only includes a copy of the Apache License).
>> 
>> No, it is supposed to include ALL of the licenses applicable to that
>> distribution.  For example,
>> 
>>    http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
>
> Funny you say that, because I've been trying to tell folks the same thing. 
> When I said above, "which currently only includes a copy of the Apache 
> License", I was really referring to the way I believe most projects are 
> actually operating today, not the way that you and I would both agree is 
> preferable (and the way a minority of projects are doing things).

Well, if you need a reference to point people at, that process (including 
all licenses in the LICENSE file) is documented here:

http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html

See the last para of "Applying the license to new software".

--
Martin Cooper


>>> "This product is a collective work, selected and arranged by the Apache 
>>> Software Foundation and licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. 
>>> The components of this work include:
>>> 
>>> a) software licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or 
>>> more contributor license agreements, which the ASF licenses to you under 
>>> the Apache License, Version 2.0; and possibly,
>>> 
>>> b) third-party components licensed under terms that may be different from 
>>> those of the Apache License, Version 2.0.  Copies of such licenses can be 
>>> found in either a file or directory labeled 'LICENSES-EXT'."
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of having more than one license file.
>> Placing a general intro on the top of the file is a good idea,
>> but I prefer that all the licenses be in one file, or at least
>> specifically named by that one file.  I.e.,
>> 
>>   b) the following third-party components licensed under terms that
>>   may be different from those of the Apache License, Version 2.0:
>> 
>>      mod_foggle: LGPL    (see ./modules/foogle/COPYING)
>>      mod_doogle: MPL 1.1 (see ./modules/doogle/LICENSE
>
> I like this, and I think you and I are attempting to accomplish similar 
> things.  I definitely prefer the idea of fewer files/directories of licensing 
> info, but I was trying to balance that with:
>
> - it might be a good idea to have one identical, never 
> inadvertently/incorrectly modified LICENSE file that references where to find 
> out about third-party licenses and includes the license for all the 
> ASF-developed work.  Projects will still need to modify something as they add 
> new third-party components, but I thought this made sure the most important 
> file didn't get screwed up in the process (I'm saying LICENSE is most 
> important since it refers to the IP we produce and still alerts users of 
> where to find out about 3rd party licenses) .
>
> - it might be convenient for users to have one file or directory (if not the 
> LICENSE file) with the *text* of all the applicable licenses, not just their 
> names or a pointer to them.  I'm just guessing that there will be many cases 
> where some poor developer will have to gather up the licenses from all those 
> pointers to put into one file or directory for some lawyer to review.
>
> I don't feel really strongly about either of these two points, and I'd be 
> happy going with the modification you suggested.  But, I would be interested 
> to hear your response to these points or feedback from anyone else on this 
> list about any part of this plan.
>
> Cliff
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do notconstitute 
> legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinionsand policies of the 
> ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> forofficial ASF policies and 
> documents. 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not 
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions 
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for 
official ASF policies and documents. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message