Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 arkin@intalio.com does not designate 72.14.220.157 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <3de5d7d20807281628ia5b7deftece223d156e12d56@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:28:12 -0700
From: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Licenses are not always what they seem [was: RE: GPL licensing
 question ...]
In-Reply-To: <5c902b9e0807281435x6ded59c1r732c20dee4551954@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3d4032300807271513v73096192ucd7ec3489068f5a8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <879664.92504.qm@web54408.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <3d4032300807271853o2896de44gfa3739a0999f5fdc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8A3D1EC6-B9BE-4DE1-9341-68F225D18267@gbiv.com>
	 <3d4032300807280304m9cd0774m8d86d2b14d0bee5b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3F931E6E-2F39-4CB1-95E2-D99C159DE8CE@gbiv.com>
	 <3d4032300807281312x63dc02f5u631890c8ed1b30f2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c902b9e0807281332m69e3c49tecc246ddd521f660@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3d4032300807281402m5bb55b6cmba6a582d0fd8a69b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c902b9e0807281435x6ded59c1r732c20dee4551954@mail.gmail.com>

>From the FAQ: "Operating systems or other applications written to use
Xen's hypercall interface are not derived works of Xen, hence may be
licensed differently."  That's at best a clarification.  To be usable
as permission, I need to know exactly which portions of the code I'm
allowed to use in a manner that deviates from the GPL.

Which, thankfully Xen takes care of by applying the appropriate licenses:

http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-3.2-testing.hg?file/6de4320d71f9/COPYING

2GNU General Public License
3--------------------------
4
5Most files in this repository are licensed under the terms of the GNU
6General Public License (GPL), a copy of which is attached at the end
7of this notice. Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as
8the files in this repository are concerned is _this_ particular
9version of the license (i.e., *only* v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or
10whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
11
12Licensing Exceptions (the relaxed BSD-style license)
13----------------------------------------------------
14
15For the convenience of users and those who are porting OSes to run as
16Xen guests, certain files in this repository are not subject to the
17GPL when distributed separately or included in software packages
18outside this repository. Instead we specify a much more relaxed
19BSD-style license. Affected files include the Xen interface headers
20(xen/include/public/COPYING), and various drivers, support functions
21and header files within the Linux source trees on
22http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6.X-xen.hg. In all such cases,
23license terms are stated at the top of the file or in a COPYING file
24in the same directory. Note that _any_ file that is modified and then
25distributed within a Linux kernel is still subject to the GNU GPL.


A couple of examples from include/public:
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-3.2-testing.hg?file/6de4320d71f9/xen/include/public/COPYING
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-3.2-testing.hg?file/6de4320d71f9/xen/include/public/callback.h

Assaf


On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> If, however, the owners of the program are claiming that parts of
>> their code are covered under GPLv2, and other parts which would be
>> covered by clause 2b of GPLv2 are not subject to the terms of GPLv2,
>> then we have a contradiction that needs to be resolved.  One way to
>> view this is that it is not our problem, and that the owners have
>> reduced their ability to pursue claims of copyright infringement.
>
> Remember that Xen is free to license their code (or parts of their
> code) under as many licenses as they like.  (For a fee, you can likely
> get Xen from Citrix under another license.)  The GPL isn't exclusive.
> So, for those files in include/public/, one set of terms Xen has
> decided to offer to the public is GPLv2 and another option is the
> BSD-style license.
>
> I think, in this case given the Xen team's comments in COPYING, their
> intent for the exception is about as clear as it could ever be given
> the constraints of the GPL.  The risk for us and our downstream
> users/developers using those headers covered by the exception is, I
> feel, minimal and darn close to zero.
>
>> However, they may not have that option if their code constitutes "a
>> work based on" another program also made available under the GPLv2
>> license.
>
> True, but I don't believe that's the case here.  -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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