www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:45:30 GMT
Craig Russell wrote:
> 3. IIRC, the last time we at legal discussed this issue, we came to no
> conclusion whether SVN was considered a distribution simply because
> someone could check out the code from our working repository. Some
> argued that since the code is available from our repository without
> restriction (no click-through license or disclaimer), then by
> definition it's a distribution. Others argue that Apache makes a huge
> deal of the process of releasing code, producing source and binary
> DISTRIBUTIONs (emphasis is MINE), and voting; and so the artifacts
> that are distributed and mirrored worldwide are our distributions, not
> the SVN artifacts.

I don't remember participating in that discussion, so forgive me if I
misinterpret this question or say silly things that you've already decided. 

Companies deal with this problem every day. When a US company works with an
Indian contractor on some project, copying of tools or other software
between the two of them is probably a distribution (local law applies). That
requires a license. So, too, it is a distribution when ASF members copy and
share code among themselves. They each work for different companies and are
not employees of ASF. The licenses for those shared tools must permit that
copying and distribution.

The product jointly developed by them also is, to use Craig's emphasis, a
DISTRIBUTION. For ASF DISTRIBUTIONs, they need to be under the Apache
License. The reason we don't DISTRIBUTE those non-Apache works to our
customers is not because we can't, but because we won't.

However, referring now just to our shared tools, can't they include GPL
works or even proprietary works? Why couldn't we put a shared Linux
distribution in our working repository, or even a version of Windows that
Microsoft licenses for a shared development environment? We shouldn't mind
distributing those tools to each other under the terms of those licenses for
development purposes, as long as we don't DISTRIBUTE them to our customers,
and as long as they don't affect the Apache License terms for our own
DISTRIBUTIONs.

/Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:43 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in
> distributions
> 
> Three points:
> 
> 1. If the distribution artifacts have no prohibited code, whether you
> can release them is a separate topic. I don't think that what is in
> SVN whence the release was produced is relevant to whether the release
> is ok.
> 
> 2. Best practice (IMHO) is to avoid putting prohibited code into SVN
> even for developer convenience. Developers should be able to download
> their own copies of prohibited code and put them into their own
> environments. Scripts that are checked into SVN can make this easier.
> 
> 3. IIRC, the last time we at legal discussed this issue, we came to no
> conclusion whether SVN was considered a distribution simply because
> someone could check out the code from our working repository. Some
> argued that since the code is available from our repository without
> restriction (no click-through license or disclaimer), then by
> definition it's a distribution. Others argue that Apache makes a huge
> deal of the process of releasing code, producing source and binary
> DISTRIBUTIONs (emphasis is MINE), and voting; and so the artifacts
> that are distributed and mirrored worldwide are our distributions, not
> the SVN artifacts.
> 
> 4. IANAL (and apparently can't count either).
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> 
> > The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
> > compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
> > out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
> >
> > Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
> > provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
> > Apache-license-friendly.  And our release archives only contain the
> > core platform.  But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
> > live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
> >
> > -T
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
> >>
> >> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> >>
> >>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> >>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip
> >>> out
> >>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution
> >>> without
> >>> the offending code.
> >>>
> >>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
> >>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
> >>> distribute?  I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
> >>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
> >>> complicates our build process a little.
> >>>
> >>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this
> >>> question
> >>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> -T
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> 
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message