www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: dual licensing
Date Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:00:55 GMT
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the
>> definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL
>> (category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be
>> licensed under category B or category C?
>> Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and
>> LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred,
>> the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without
>> prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL).
> Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License
> This is made available under a category A license, and it totally
> acceptable for use by ASF projects.  The fact that it additionally is
> made available under a different license does not impose any
> additional restrictions on us.  This would be equally true if the
> second license were proprietary.
> The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees.
> As licensors, we do not dual license our code.

Vague memories of threads somewhere... maybe on general@incubator
about whether we need to inform the downstream user of our choice, and
whether our choice of license affects them in any way.

** If we choose MIT for jQuery, can a downstream user choose GPL?

I'm pretty sure the answer here was hell yes, they get a direct
license rather than one from us.

** If we've included an Apache licensed piece of code that binds very
tightly into jQuery (or just as a plugin), and the downstream user
chooses GPL - how do they handle the very confusing, broken, structure
they now have; and how do we make sure no one is stupid and claims our
code is GPL?

I start to get unsure at this point - it's specifically a problem with
copyleft licenses, and maybe the answer is "Yes, it's screwed up, but
that's a problem for the chooser of the copyleft license. Good luck.


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

View raw message