www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?
Date Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:53:51 GMT
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>  First, I am not a member of the legal committee so my answers are only
>  my own opinion. I participate here because I actually enjoy the legal
>  aspects of software - even though I completely disagree with software
>  patents.
>
>  As http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html states, the LGPL violates
>  constraint #3, not #2.  Criteria #2 refers to licenses like the GPL
>  which says in part
>
>  > The "Program", below,
>  > refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
>  > means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
>  > that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
>  > either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
>  > language.
>  So any program which uses a library licensed under the GPL must also be
>  licensed under the GPL as they would be considered to be derivative
>  works. Like it or not, any software that you write that uses software
>  written by someone else isn't a completely independent work since you
>  are building upon the work of others.
>
>  As for the ServiceMix case, there are at least two reasons their case
>  needed to be brought before the legal committee.
>  1. No use of the LGPL had ever been permitted before. While in my
>  opinion the ServiceMix case is allowed under 3party.html it still needs
>  to be formally approved.
>  2. Part of the consideration is not only what the license is but how the
>  third party component is used. There are cases where use of a GPL
>  component may be allowed and there are cases where the LGPL will be
>  disallowed. For example, in my opinion a project that requires and only
>  works with Hibernate (LGPL) shouldn't be allowed.

Examples:

Roller, at the time it entered incubation, depended on Hibernate.  At
the time, it didn't have somebody with an itch to scratch to support
another persistence mechanism.  This was made an incubation issue, and
ultimately resolved.  Roller now supports OpenJPA.

Hadoop has some start-up scripts that depend on Bash.  At the present
time, there doesn't appear to be anybody with an itch to scratch to
support another shell.  I know of nobody that has an issue with this.

- Sam Ruby

Note: in the case of Roller, the policy wasn't that Roller couldn't
depend on Hibernate, it was that Roller could not bundle Hibernate.
Hadoop doesn't bundle Bash.

http://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/powered_by_struts2_and_openjpa

>  Ralph
>
>
>
>
>  Joe Schaefer wrote:
>  > Criterion #2 states:
>  >
>  >   The license must not place restrictions on the
>  >   distribution of independent works that simply use or
>  >
>  >   contain the covered work.
>  >
>  > It seems to me that the ServiceMix case under
>  > discussion exemplifies this situation, where they wish
>  > to use JBOSS as an optional work, and include some
>  > glue
>  > code (presumably under the Apache License) in their
>  > product.
>  >
>  > If LGPL does not violate criterion #2, then the
>  > current policy allows them to do this without approval
>  > from the legal-affairs committee.  But if it does
>  > violate it, then according to the document both the
>  > PMC
>  > chair and the legal-affairs chair must approve.
>  >
>  > Would it be possible to produce a list of licenses
>  > which satisfy criterion #2, and add them to the
>  > policy?
>  >
>  > Personally I don't understand criterion #2, because to
>  > my thinking independent works shouldn't even care
>  > about
>  > 3rd party licenses.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >       ____________________________________________________________________________________
>  > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
>  > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > 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
>  >
>  >
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
>
>

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