www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:52:20 GMT
On 3/10/07, Andrus Adamchik <aadamchik@apache.org> wrote:
> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers are
> very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>
> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there was
> a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL frameworks
> not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody please clarify
> whether this is true?

The reasoning is wrong. After discussion with the FSF, the ASF were
happy that depending on LGPL jars did not invoke any form of
reciprocalness, so there was no license issue to stop us using LGPL
code and/or distributing it.

I think for GPL it was not defined as to whether compiling against GPL
in Java made your code GPL. I imagine the intent is that it would
(regardless of whether the language is right), so I'm guessing the ASF
would go with the intent (ie: we can't compile against GPL because it
would make our code GPL). We can quite happily distribute GPL however
license-wise. It's just a thing in a zip.

Policy comes into effect in terms of what we think our users expect.
Do they expect to download something from us and have a GPL jar
sitting in there? Definitely not. I imagine there would be an uproar
if someone discovered that their assumption that something was Apache
licensed was that hugely incorrect. Take a look at the HTTP Server
license btw. Our flagship product is not licensed under AL 2.0, but is
a combination of licenses, so this is an iceberg that people don't
usually see the depths of.

We know that people aren't going to throw a hissy fit if they discover
that the product they downloaded from us also contains MIT, BSD, ASL
1.1 or other AL 2.0 licences. Least it's a fair bet. What's tricky is
to decide what they'll think when they discover that there are
licences such as:

CPL
CDDL
MPL
NPL
LGPL
EPL
Artistic
Creative Commons *
etc...

Which ones are going to be a shoulder-shrug, and which ones are going
to be okay. Someone may be vehemently opposed to CPL for example, or
highly against the Netscape clause in NPL, or very against LGPL. Cliff
spent a lot of time with the various licences and drew a grey line
between them all that we're still getting a feel for:

http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html

So the reason is not because of relicensing but because of what a user
would expect of us.  Relicensing is a copyright issue afaik - if you
have the copyright you can relicense, if you don't you can't; in our
case we have a software grant that defines a superclass of licence
within which we can relicense.

Hope that helps,

Hen

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