www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:37:39 GMT

--- Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> 
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah, it' not about finding loopholes Sam, it's
> > about
> > understanding the language in the current draft.
> > The draft talks about writing bridge code to
> > category
> > X works as something that is OK for our projects
> > to do.  If they do write bridge code to GPL'd 
> > works, then it sounds like there's going to be
> > an awful lot of GPL licensed software in our 
> > repository if we accept the FSF's position.

Let me clarify that I don't wish for the ASF to
dispute the FSF's position, just to understand
the consequences of their interpretation so we
can communicate it more effectively in our policy.
If they consider constructing a process from files
as preparing a derivative work of those files, and
they believe that is not something which falls
under the exemptions written into the US law, then
at least we can reason about the consequences of
that position.

> > I don't like that prospect, personally, but
> > if the ultimate 
> > answer is to make GPL dependencies verboten,
> > I guess that's ok.
> >
> >   
> That is the major difference between the GPL and
> LGPL. With the LGPL you can write bridge code,

But following the FSF's position, the conditions of
section 6 are still being placed (indirectly) on 
the bridge code we write, so we need to be careful
in how we represent the licensing on those bits.

> with GPL you cannot. The only
> way to really get 
> around that is if the API you are writing to came
> first and was non-GPL 
> and then someone creates an implementation under a
> GPL license.  For 
> example, if JBoss AS was under GPL I doubt anyone
> writing applications 
> that strictly conform to J2EE would care.

So lets return to the Subject of this thread,
because it may turn out that I am misparsing
what is written in the draft.  Here's the
excerpt in question:

  YOU MAY include code within the Apache product 
  necessary to achieve compatibility with a prohibited

  work through the use of API calls, "bridge code", or

  protocols, provided that the compatibility code was 
  contributed under a CLA. However, any such code used

  for compatibility with a third-party work that is
                                            ^^^^
                                             ^^
Which noun does "that" refer to here?  Does it refer
to "such code" or does it refer to "third-party work"?

  licensed under terms that violate criterion #2
("must 
  not place restrictions on the distribution of 
  independent works that simply use or contain the 
  covered work."), such as the GPL, requires review
and    
  explicit approval of both the PMC chair and the
Legal 
  Affairs officer.



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
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


Mime
View raw message