www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <pste...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposed header text at the top of each LICENSE file
Date Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:47:45 GMT
Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> 
> "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote on 11/23/2005 09:09:23 PM:
> 
>  > 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
>  >
>  > > "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)
>  >
>  > ....Roy
> 
> 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.

+1 from both user and RM perspective.
> 
> 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?

Immediately, from user perspective.  I understand that it some cases, 
the core-optional distro packaging may not be practical, but wherever it 
is, that will make it easier for users.  Forcing a full license review 
for every apache distro is not an appealing option.

Phil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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