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: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:31:56 GMT
Roy,

After looking at your latest post, I actually think we are on the same
page on all but the binary question for reciprocal licenses.  Let me
know if I'm misconstruing your comments below, but it looks like you
have affirmed the three license criteria of the policy, but disagree
on the extra condition for reciprocal licenses.

I'm pointing this out, because it is my responsibility to issue a
third-party licensing policy that makes sense for the ASF.  At this
point, your comments are the only outstanding criticisms of the
policy, so I want to make sure it is as well defined as possible.

See below...

On 3/16/06, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> Copyleft is not just GPL -- it is the notion of reciprocal terms in
> general.  GPL is contrary to our principles because it forces others
> to change the terms on their work just because it is combined with
> a work under GPL.

Sounds like support for http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criterion2:

"The license must not place restrictions on the distribution of
independent works that simply use or contain the covered work."

----

> MPL 1.1 was specifically designed to only apply
> reciprocal terms to changes within the covered work, and CDDL improves
> on that to make the executable forms distributable under any license
> provided that the covered code is also distributed (separately) as
> source code.
...
> I particularly like the fact that the CDDL
> defines that the source code form remains under CDDL even if the
> executable forms are sublicensed.  That allows big companies to
> preserve their master contracts with customers, while at the same
> time preserving our own code as open source.

Sounds like support for http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criterion3:

"The license must not place restrictions on the distribution of larger
works, other than to require that the covered component still complies
with the conditions of its license."

----

and from an earlier post in this thread:

> it really has been the intention of the Foundation from its very
> beginning to be a distributor of open source.

and that would cover http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criterion1:

"The license must meet the Open Source Definition."

-----

So, would you agree that your only concern about the current version
of the policy is the condition for inclusion of reciprocally licensed
works? (http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criterion-reciprocity)

Cliff

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