www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Two weeks left for comments! (was: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy)
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:25:14 GMT
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:02 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:

> Here's how the applicable part of the policy reads in the current  
> (v0.52) draft:
>
> (from http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-build- 
> mustnot1)
>
> "YOU MUST NOT distribute build scripts or documentation within an
> Apache product with the purpose of causing the default/standard build
> of an Apache product to include any part of a prohibited work."
>
> Maybe this needs to be reworded a little.  Let me first say what I was
> trying to accomplish with it.  I think it would be a bad idea for us
> to decide that on one hand we won't include GPL'd works within an
> Apache product, but then distribute a product that require static
> linking with a GPL'd work on the user's system to produce a standard
> binary.  In other words, standard product binaries, whether
> distributed by Apache or built on the user's machine should have the
> same applicable licenses.
>
> There's certainly nothing wrong with an Apache product dynamically
> using a GPL'd work as a system requirement, nor with the product
> depending on the presence of a Microsoft Windows operating system or a
> Sun JVM.  The key is to not let the Apache product get confused with
> the system requirements it depends on.
>
> So, any thoughts on how to better word the requirement listed above?
> Does it help to talk about static linking with the prohibited work or
> embedding the prohibited work inside the product?

I think you should remove it -- among other things, it places a
policy restriction on ourselves that is contrary to open source
principles.  Users of our software should be allowed to link with
anything in their environment.  We should not be prohibited from
creating the bridge code between open source and proprietary systems,
provided that none of that code is distributed in our products.

For example, Maven would have to be gutted under that policy, and
all of our JSR-based projects would be terminated, including
Geronimo, JAMES, and Jackrabbit.

....Roy

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