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: Move Overview, Category X and transition examples (a.k.a. exceptions) to resolved
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:33:05 GMT
I've incorporated the below into resolved.html.

I did some more editing on the discussion points, making sure Category
B and System Requirements were not discussed. Keeping it simple etc.

Hen

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> +1 to all of the changes mentioned below.
>
> Not too concerned about 1) in the guiding principles; if we need to
> refine over time, we can.
>
> Similarly, it/when we need to resolve specific questions w.r.t. MYSQL, we can.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> Specifically, I'm talking about moving
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x
>>> and
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#transition-examples
>>> to
>>>  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> ... while striking the words "transition and" from the text.
>>>
>>> I'm open to wordsmithing suggestions, but the ideas expressed below
>>> seem uncontroversial and have withstood the test of time.  There
>>> clearly will need to be text added to introduce the term "Category B",
>>> and I'm inclined to expand the scope of that category from "reciprocal
>>> licenses" to something that conveys the notion of licenses where
>>> approval is contingent on usage.  Perhaps someday LGPL could be moved
>>> into such a category.  I, for example, am untroubled by purely
>>> optional dependencies on LGPL code.
>>>
>>> For convenience, I'm including the text in question below:
>>>
>>> - - - -
>>>
>>>  Software License Criteria
>>>
>>> The following criteria serve to fulfill the first two guiding
>>> principles of this policy, as described above.
>>>
>>>   1. The license must meet the Open Source Definition.
>>>   2. The license must not place restrictions on the distribution of
>>> independent works that simply use or contain the covered work.
>>>   3. The license must not place restrictions on the distribution of
>>> larger works, other than to require that the covered component still
>>> complies with the conditions of its license.
>>>
>>> In addition to these requirements, if the license requires any degree
>>> of reciprocity, the ASF distribution must be prominently labeled to
>>> indicate the inclusion of software under reciprocal terms.
>>
>> I guess so. I'm not convinced of 1), but I don't have any good anti cases.
>>
>>> - - - -
>>>
>>> Category X: Excluded Licenses
>>>
>>> The following licenses must not apply to any software within an Apache
>>> product, whether in source or binary form. See Options for Prohibited
>>> Works for applicability to system requirements or optional works
>>> distributed elsewhere.
>>>
>>>    * BCL*
>>>    * Special exceptions to the GNU GPL (e.g. GNU Classpath)*
>>
>> How about the MySQL exception to the GPL that specifically mentions
>> APR? Not that I know if APR includes it or not.
>>
>>>    * GNU GPL
>>>    * GNU LGPL*
>>>    * NPL 1.0 and NPL 1.1*
>>>    * QPL
>>>    * Sleepycat License
>>>
>>> * see discussion of this in <del>Transition and</del> Exceptions
>>
>> Add Afferro GPL.  +1 to listing these as 'not in Apache products'.
>>
>>> - - - -
>>>
>>> Exceptions:
>>>
>>>  Applicability to excluded licenses used today (or licenses that have
>>> been considered for use)
>>>
>>> BCL
>>>
>>> The Binary Code License falls far short of the Open Source Definition,
>>> thereby violating the first criterion for license approval. All
>>> BCL-licensed works currently included in ASF products must be removed
>>
>> Keep the above. Delete the below on BCL. Once we've got an entry for
>> CDDL, point to that as a likely replacement (if our entry is
>> positive).
>>
>> Nobody should be inc;uding BCL, so I see no reason to give people time
>> on it. Also we don't want to discuss system requirements yet as that
>> is a quagmire. This is a policy focused on licenses that apply to
>> Apache products - ie) what you distribute, not on what dependencies
>> you can have.
>>
>>> before the earlier of one year or two major releases (see the General
>>> Rule above). PMCs with BCL-licensed works are encouraged to use this
>>> time to request copyright owners of such works to consider also
>>> licensing under an authorized license (Category A or Category B), such
>>> as the CDDL. Another option for some products may be to move the
>>> BCL-licensed work to a system requirement that is not included in the
>>> product.
>>>
>>> NPL
>>>
>>> The NPL is simply the MPL (which is allowed under Category B) plus
>>> amendments that are specific to Netscape. Unfortunately, these
>>> amendments allow "Netscape" (now part of Time Warner) to avoid the
>>> reciprocity requirement that all other licensees must adhere to. This
>>> disqualifies the license from meeting Open Source Definition #5 ("No
>>> Discrimination Against Persons or Groups"). While this is a clear
>>> violation of the first license criterion, it is unlikely to be a
>>> significant practical concern for users of Apache products that
>>> include an NPL binary. Therefore, the NPL is currently listed as an
>>> excluded license
>>
>> Delete the line below. It was there for Rhino, but that got
>> relicensed. There's very little NPL out there now.
>>
>>> , but this exclusion will be reevaluated in six months.
>>>
>>
>> Delete this section on XML/Text and Category B. Unnecessary until we
>> bring Category B licenses in, and I think the general consensus seemed
>> to be inclined towards Roy's view that source and binary should be the
>> same.
>>
>>> XML and Text Configuration files under Category B licenses
>>>
>>> The current license policy only allows source files to be included
>>> under a Category A license, not a Category B license (binary only).
>>> Therefore, XML and text files covered by a Category B license cannot
>>> be included in an Apache product. Whether this places a significant
>>> burden on PMCs will be reevaluated in six months.
>>> JavaScript/ECMAScript libraries under Category B licenses
>>>
>>> As AJAX-related functionality becomes more popular, there may be a
>>> demand for JavaScript libraries, which are only available in source
>>> form. The current license policy allows such code to be included when
>>> covered by a Category A license (authorized for source and binary),
>>> but not a Category B license (binary only). Whether there is an
>>> overwhelming need for such Category B-licensed JavaScript libraries to
>>> be included in the product will be reevaluated in six months.
>>
>>
>>> LGPL
>>>
>>> The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license (a
>>> category that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to
>>> the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third
>>> license criterion. Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be
>>> included in Apache products, although they may be listed as system
>>> requirements or distributed elsewhere as optional works.
>>
>> +1. Good text.
>>
>>> Special exceptions to the GNU GPL
>>>
>>> Some copyright holders have licensed their works under the GPL with
>>> special exceptions. Although these exceptions may appear to be
>>> addressing the restrictions disallowed by the ASF's first and second
>>> license criteria, the exceptions may only apply to software not
>>> "derived from or based on" the covered work. The references terms
>>> defined in the GPL that include works that "use" or "contain" the
>>> work. Therefore, software under these exceptions is generally not
>>> allowed for inclusion within an Apache product. PMCs may, however,
>>> choose to allow such works to be system requirements of an Apache
>>> product, provided a review by the ASF Legal Affairs officer and PMC
>>> chair determine no part of the product is copied from or derived from
>>> the GPL/exception-licensed work other than what is strictly required
>>> to achieve compatibility. See details for inclusions within the
>>> product that are related to excluded licenses.
>>
>> Need to look at the archives for the MySql question, I seem to recall
>> there being something there.
>>
>> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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