www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hendrik Maryns <hendrik.mar...@uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject Re: Incorporating Jakarta library in my program
Date Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:46:33 GMT
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.

> On Oct 21, 2008, at 3:36 AM, Hendrik Maryns wrote:
>> 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?

>  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

>> 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
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the “copyright” line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.”

Notice /safest/ and /a pointer to where the full notice is found/.  This
does not *require* it.

And neither does the AL, following http://www.apache.org/licenses/: “to
allow the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every
file”.  Although I have to say that the already cited §4.2 does seem to
say otherwise.  Some cause for confusion, really.  Unfortunately, the
APPENDIX still recommends to put a license in each source file, although
once again http://www.apache.org/licenses/ says otherwise (The license
terms are written in such a way that they can be used by anyone, not
just the ASF, and can be applied by reference to the versioned license
terms. An appendix to the license describes how this may be done.) =>
this is not how I interpret the appendix.

>> Also, people are able to check out code from my svn repo.  If they do
>> that, they will get a CLI jar as produced by its build file, so there I
>> think it is enough that the NOTICE and LICENSE files are in the metadata
>> directory, since the other files are only class files, which are binary,
>> so my changes cannot be recognized anyway.  I do not have the changed
>> CLI files in my repo, I only have a working copy of the Apache repo
>> (since I hope my files will be incorporated there, see
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLI-173).  Does that fit the line
>> ‘You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
>> that You changed the files;’?  I am not totally sure since it doesn’t
>> speak of “source form” explicitly.  Or should I include a line in the
>> NOTICE file claiming that I edited some files (and which?), or maybe
>> somewhere else?
> The files we distribute are all covered by the Apache License, so you
> have permission to display them verbatim anywhere you like.  The headers
> at the top are sufficient to tie the files to their license.

Ok, thanks.

Hendrik Maryns
Herrenberger Straße 40
D-72070 Tübingen
www.lieverleven.be     Hier kan iedereen wat van leren.

View raw message