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: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:35:23 GMT
On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> +1.  How would you have liked the ASF to handle the
> Roller situation?  Personally I would have been ok
> with Roller continuing to distribute Hibernate within
> their tarball, so long as the LICENSE file was
> correct.  I would have preferred to see someone other
> than the core devs for Roller contribute a patch
> to remove, or make optional, the Hibernate dependency,
> but instead we tasked the Roller devs with that for
> reasons which aren't exactly clear to me.  I mean,
> if the Roller devs moved to JDO of their own free
> will, that's fine, but if they did it just to
> please the ASF, it's not, IMO.

It is my opinion that


makes Hibernate redistributable by the ASF when indicated
as such in the LICENSE header field.  Note, however, that
the clarifications on that page about binding were added in
response to our initial queries about LGPL and Java.

The theory that all Apache release artifacts must only contain
code that is entirely under the Apache License (or less
restrictive terms) is something that Brian occasionally advocated
as a way of easing his own PR efforts on behalf of open source.
It was never Apache policy.  Cliff added it to the 3party document
in spite of the fact that it had no precedence at Apache and was
the direct opposite of all the real work that was done on Apache
licensing.  I vehemently objected to its addition at that time,
which is why 3party remains a non-adopted proposal.  The fact
that some of the current board members have latched on to that
document as proof by existence, rather than deal with my
objections and produce a document that actually makes sense,
is just a sad state of affairs.

If we believe that new theory is policy, then an ASF project
cannot distribute LGPL works but can distribute software that
is entirely dependent on an LGPL work.

But, no, now someone has invented yet another new theory of
Apache licensing that never existed before.  This one says that
all of the software we release must be under the AL2 and be
complete -- not dependent on anything that someone might have
to download to make it work.  Oh, but that doesn't include JVMs.
Or languages.  Or whatchamawiggles.

And we are expected to advise Apache PMCs on this assbackwards,
holier than thou pile of pigshit that is being shoveled forth
by folks who have no licensing experience whatsoever based on
the theory that their Grandma-sense is more applicable to Apache
then the actual experience we have learned from the successful
development of collaborative open source software over the past
thirteen years.  Feh.

All of our past discussions with other organizations over
licensing issues, almost all of which were led by me, were
based on the theory that Apache would distribute components
under other licenses IF AND ONLY IF those licenses did not
place restriction on the software we develop (in other words,
they can be separated by the recipient) and contributions
to our software remain under our license no matter how the
package as a whole is received.  That was the basis for our
work on the 2.0 license (all of it based on that theory)
and it is, overwhelmingly, the only Apache philosophy on
licensing that has ever been coherently formed at the ASF.

If the board wants to change that, they can bloody well pass
a resolution that says what the licensing mandate will be
and then document that policy themselves.


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

View raw message