www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Proposed header text at the top of each LICENSE file
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:07:26 GMT
I don't see how we're representing that.  Whoever contributed the code under
the Apache license (if anyone) would be making a patent grant, but I don't
recall Apache ever claiming that it had the ability to go find everyone who
has contributed copyrightable code to old BSD projects and get patent
grants.  Frankly, I think that would be a waste of time.  And I don't see
anything in the ASLv2 that requires it. 


Asserting that "this software is licensed under the ALv2" is a little
misleading. We must at least make it clear that some of the components of
that collective work were licensed to us under other licenses, including the
BSD. That, I believe, is all that Cliff is suggesting.
 
But you're right to point out that we don't need to look backwards to
correct old information. Let's just do it right going forward.
 
/Larry


  _____  

From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Cliff Schmidt
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Legal Discuss
Subject: Re: Proposed header text at the top of each LICENSE file



Cliff Schmidt <cliffs@apache.org> wrote on 11/28/2005 05:40:17 PM:

> On Nov 24, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> 
> > I had thought that the approach that we were going to use was to  
> > have the base distribution of any Apache project licensed under the  
> > ASL, and that there would optionally be available for download add- 
> > ons and non-core technology under other licenses (such as MPL, CPL,  
> > etc.).
> >
> > If that's the case, then the license file is much easier.  Its  
> > ASL.  And for any other components, there would be a single LICENSE  
> > file describing the license.  That would be easiest.
> 
> Unfortunately, I no longer think this is feasible.  There was a time  
> when I thought that the ASF could limit its distributions to include  
> only software under the Apache License.  I thought that nearly all  
> third-party components that we currently distribute could be  
> sublicensed under the Apache License.  Before even getting into the  
> question of how critical CPL and MPL-licensed binary components are  
> to today's ASF distributions, let's take an extreme example: do you  
> think it's appropriate for the ASF to relicense a BSD-licensed  
> component under the Apache License?  Aren't we now representing that  
> the contributors of that code have offered an explicit patent grant  
> and revocation condition? 

I don't see how we're representing that.  Whoever contributed the code under
the Apache license (if anyone) would be making a patent grant, but I don't
recall Apache ever claiming that it had the ability to go find everyone who
has contributed copyrightable code to old BSD projects and get patent
grants.  Frankly, I think that would be a waste of time.  And I don't see
anything in the ASLv2 that requires it. 

BTW, I'm working on trying to get to San Diego this year.  If others in this
discussion are going to be there, maybe we can do some of this in person.
Might be a bit quicker. 

> The same question applies to the MIT  
> license and even the ASL 1.1.
> 
> > If we aren't taking that approach and we are including non-ASL  
> > licensed code in the base distributions, at what point does the non- 
> > ASL code outweigh the ASL code and cause a problem for the community?
> 
> If you see a problem with relicensing third-party BSD or ASL 1.1  
> components under the Apache License, it's just not ever going to be  
> possible for us to limit our distributions to only those with an ALv2  
> license, not even for just the core required stuff.
> 
> Cliff


Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/ 




Mime
View raw message