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 15:21:15 GMT
Roy T. Fielding schreef:
> 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.

I will do that, but these things take a while (and in my case probably
will, I am afraid).

> The harder way is described below.

Which I will have to go in the meantime, since my contract is ending by
the end of the year so I want to have a 1.0 release by then.

>>>> 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.

That is all so totally true.  Sometimes I think I’d rather put my code
in the public domain, but I can’t.

>>> 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.
> 
> Yes.

Great.  Combined with Simon’s suggestion for the jar, that will be it.

>>> 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 notice
> that does not apply to your derivative work.

ACK.

>>>> 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

You’re right, as Simon pointed out, this is all possible if you use the
license for your own work but not for derived works.

So one final question: if I only distribute the .classes (which the APL
seems to allow), then there is no obvious way to make clear that I
modified them, so would I need to, and if yes, how?

(Note again that I will not be distributing my modified source since I
hope to integrate it to the commons project.)

Thanks all for your patience.
H.
-- 
Hendrik Maryns
Herrenberger Straße 40
D-72070 Tübingen
+49707143783
http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
=================
www.lieverleven.be     Hier kan iedereen wat van leren.



Mime
View raw message