Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84871 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2007 17:47:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Jun 2007 17:47:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 22427 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jun 2007 17:47:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 22204 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jun 2007 17:47:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 22193 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jun 2007 17:47:42 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:47:42 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.173.236.229] (HELO mail26h.sbc-webhosting.com) (216.173.236.229) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:47:38 -0700 Received: from mx11.stngva01.us.mxservers.net (204.202.242.100) by mail26h.sbc-webhosting.com (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id 0-0614653235 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mmm2630.sbc-webhosting.com [216.173.237.89] (EHLO mmm2630.sbc-webhosting.com) by mx11.stngva01.us.mxservers.net (mxl_mta-1.3.8-10p4) with ESMTP id 8ed71764.776.243.mx11.stngva01.us.mxservers.net; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 37540 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2007 17:47:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO LROSENTOSHIBA) (lrosen@206.170.15.53) by with ESMTPA; 14 Jun 2007 17:47:14 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Lawrence Rosen" To: Subject: RE: Comments on GPLv3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:40:59 -0700 Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag Message-ID: <00b701c7aeab$2e200700$6501a8c0@LROSENTOSHIBA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C7AE70.81C12F00" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-Index: AceuqysWsPzcRrx5SRGVBLPmcX3/LQ== X-Spam: [F=0.0108239700; heur=0.500(-8800); stat=0.010; spamtraq-heur=0.519(2007022501)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [216.173.237.89] X-SF-Loop: 1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C7AE70.81C12F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Noel Bergman wrote: > I am now wondering again about the GPL and such components as the MySQL > JDBC driver, which is under the GPL. If under GPLv3, since no one would > actually refer to the driver's internals, and would only use the standard > JDBC interfaces that it implements, would the GPL have any effect > whatsoever on code that wants to include the driver in the distribution? > Heretofore (GPLv2), we've said yes and banned the driver. But perhaps we > can allow distribution of it under GPLv3. Yes? No? Yes, we can allow distribution of such GPLv3 drivers without any effect whatsoever on Apache's code. Stay away from the internals, design to the standard interfaces implemented by the GPLv3 module, and aggregate verbatim copies of the GPLv3 module with any collective works you want to distribute. GPLv3 permits that. Whether ASF wants to permit that is up to you. I am, of course, interested in contrary opinions by anyone on this list. Jeff Thompson, for example, made an interesting suggestion yesterday that GPLv3 replaces "linking" with "dependencies" for determining whether something is a derivative work. I think that goes way too far, since most software depends on other software to operate properly; the word "dependencies" is over-inclusive. So I'd want to know if Jeff and others believe that having Apache code "depend on" the functions performed by a verbatim copy of GPLv3 code such as the MySQL JDBC driver makes any difference under copyright law or GPLv3 license analysis? /Larry ------=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C7AE70.81C12F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Noel Bergman wrote:

> I am now wondering again about the GPL and such components = as the MySQL

> JDBC driver, which is under the GPL.  If under GPLv3, = since no one would

> actually refer to the driver's internals, and would only = use the standard

> JDBC interfaces that it implements, would the GPL have any = effect

> whatsoever on code that wants to include the driver in the distribution?

> Heretofore (GPLv2), we've said yes and banned the = driver.  But perhaps we

> can allow distribution of it under GPLv3.  Yes?  = No?

 

Yes, we can allow distribution of such GPLv3 drivers without any = effect whatsoever on Apache's code. Stay away from the internals, design to the standard interfaces implemented by the GPLv3 module, and aggregate = verbatim copies of the GPLv3 module with any collective works you want to = distribute. GPLv3 permits that. Whether ASF wants to permit that is up to you. =

 

I am, of course, interested in contrary opinions by anyone on = this list. Jeff Thompson, for example, made an interesting suggestion yesterday = that GPLv3 replaces "linking" with "dependencies" for = determining whether something is a derivative work. I think that goes way too far, = since most software depends on other software to operate properly; the word "dependencies" is over-inclusive. So I'd want to know if Jeff = and others believe that having Apache code "depend on" the = functions performed by a verbatim copy of GPLv3 code such as the MySQL JDBC driver = makes any difference under copyright law or GPLv3 license analysis? =

 

/Larry

 

------=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C7AE70.81C12F00--