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: Incorporating Jakarta library in my program
Date Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:48:15 GMT
On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:46 AM, Hendrik Maryns wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding schreef:
>> First, making GPL changes to an existing non-GPL product is stupid.
>> Sorry, there is no other way to describe it.  When I make changes
>> to another person's product, I always license the changes under the
>> same terms as the original because it is extremely rare for
>> such changes to actually qualify as separately copyrightable and
>> without a separate copyright I have no right to change the terms.
>> Besides, it will annoy the original programmers.
> I think you are misunderstanding me.  I have my own program, GPL,  
> which
> uses Jakarta CLI.  I however made some changes to CLI because, well, I
> think the design is not very good.  As I mentioned below, I posted  
> those
> changes to JIRA, hoping for them to be taken over, and then of course
> under the AL.

Yes, but the easy way is to publish your changes to CLI under the same
license as CLI.  Your own program can still use your modified version
of CLI.  There would only be one license per jar.

The harder way is described below.

>>> Let me explain my problem again: if I include the jar into my  
>>> jar, the
>>> jar program takes over the files LICENSE and NOTICE from the META- 
>>> INF
>>> directory, which are put there by the CLI build system.
>> So, don't use the CLI build system.
> You sound like you want to keep people from using Jakarta stuff.  The
> thing about the Apache license is to let others use it, isn’t it?

This has nothing to do with "use".  Any time you redistribute a
copyrighted work there are all sorts of laws and regulations and
customs and other general nonsense that comes into play.  If everyone
in the same sandbox is playing by the same rules, we all have fun
because we can all copy each other's contributions and make use of
each other's ideas to improve everyone's experience.  If one person
decides to play by different rules, then nobody has any fun because
we each have to double our overhead keeping track of where each
contribution is coming from, whether it was based on your stuff or
our stuff, and likewise for any downstream improvers of your work.

It is so painful that it is often more efficient to just say
"bugger off" than to try to explain how to meld multiple licensing
styles within a single distribution.

>>  Better yet, don't include jars
>> within jars if you intend to modify the license terms.
> Actually, the jar is not included in the other jar, but rather its
> contents are copied over.  Both jars are merged, so to say.
> And once again, I do not want to modify the license terms, I just want
> to make sure I do nothing wrong.
>>> However, If
>>> people were to look inside my jar (without going to the website,  
>>> because
>>> there it is clearly indicated that I use GPL3), they would then come
>>> under the false impression that I use the Apache license, since they
>>> will see a file LICENSE, open it and see the Apache license.  Please
>>> give some advice on how to avoid this confusion.  E.g. can I  
>>> rename the
>>> file Apache-LICENSE or something.  The NOTICE file is also included
>>> there, but that is fine.  For example, I could put the file COPYING
>>> there as well, as usual in GNU projects.
>>> Wait a moment, on second reading, I see no obligation to include the
>>> LICENSE file, only the NOTICE file.  Then it’s easy: I replace the
>>> LICENSE file with COPYING and leave NOTICE intact.  Am I correct  
>>> here?
>> No. You would figure out what the license terms are for the combined
>> jar by obeying all restrictions specified by all copyright owners
>> within that jar,
> That’s what I am trying to do and you are not really helpful here.
>> and then present all of those terms within one
>> license file
> Aha, do you suggest that I have *one* file which contains both the  
> GPL,
> clarifying that it is for my code, and below it the AL, clarifying  
> that
> it is for the org.jakarta.* code?  Indeed, the license simply states
> ‘You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a
> copy of this License;’, which would then be the case.


>> and merge all required attributions into NOTICE.
> Which amounts to just copying it over since I do not need to change
> anything.

Yes, though you should probably exclude or preface accordingly any  
that does not apply to your derivative work.

>>> I suppose there will be no way around putting a notice in each  
>>> file I
>>> changed, but I am fine with that.
>> The GPL requires the exact same thing.
> Actually, no.
> The GPL says (also in the appendix):
> “attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest

No, I meant the part where both license say ...

       (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
           stating that You changed the files; and

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