www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>
Subject RE: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
Date Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:05:57 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NOIROT, Julie J [mailto:JULIE.J.NOIROT@airbus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 March 2010 3:21 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Could you please remove my address from this discussion?
> I have subscribed last week, because I had one single question on one
> software ECCN that I did not manage to find on the website but now I
> realize that I am not really concerned by the forum discussion.
> 
> Thanks for your understanding,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Julie Noirot

Hi Julie,

You can send an email to :

legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org

from your subscribed address. Just use the word 'unsubscribe' in the message
subject and body.
You'll get a confirmation which you can just reply and send as-is.

HTH

Gav...

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15 March 2010 18:06
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Luis Villa
> Subject: Re: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
> 
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 03/12/2010 08:57:43
> PM:
> >
> >> RE: updating the MPL and making it Apache compatible
> >>
> >> Hi Luis,
> >>
> > ...
> >> I'm also sort of surprised that you believe there's an
> incompatibility
> >> between the Apache License 2.0 and the MPL. Apache is thrilled to
> have
> > its
> >> software incorporated into any larger works under any license anyone
> > wants.
> >> If we're compatible with proprietary licenses, why aren't we already
> >> compatible with the MPL?
> >>
> > ...
> >> I believe that the Apache License 2.0 is already one-way compatible
> with
> > MPL
> >> 1.1, and I can't imagine what you would put in your new license that
> > would
> >> change that situation for the worse. I'll be watching, though, just
> in
> > case.
> >> ;)
> >
> > Larry, Luis,
> >
> > Do you think that there is an opportunity to get the MPL 2-way
> compatible
> > with the Apache license?
> 
> I'd love to see that. I was trying to think of how weak-copyleft and
> permissive could find a middle ground, but couldn't think of a
> permissively,with,some,copyleft license that could satisfy both
> philosophies.
> 
> > As I understand it, Apache projects occasionally want to include MPL
> > licensed software, and could include binaries under Category B of
> Apache's
> > Third Party Licensing Policy.  Binaries are normally the only form of
> > distribution because source code for MPL projects can only be
> distributed
> > under the MPL, whereas binaries can be distributed under different
> terms.
> > As the policy points out, limiting the distribution to binaries
> causes some
> > practical issues, especially for scripting languages, etc.
> 
> The direct Apache reason on the binary-only policy is that it lowers
> the risk of modifications being incorrectly managed. We have items in
> category B that don't have the binaries under different license
> option.
> 
> We could solve this with a read-only infrastructure that manages the
> changes; but it also requires our users to setup the same type of
> infrastructure. Maybe if we someday end up with a standard approach to
> classifying licensing in projects that could be possible.
> 
> > Under the weak copyleft principle, the source code must always be
> available
> > under the public license (in this case MPL).  It would be
> theoretically
> > possible to include in the next version of the MPL permission to
> distribute
> > either source or binary under different terms as long as the source
> code is
> > also available under the MPL itself.  The relevant question is
> whether that
> > would create too much of a problem for MPL projects.
> 
> I think the biggest issue here is that the user of the product under
> the different license is now detached from MPL. Effectively this would
> be a 1-tier copyleft system and you could get around MPL by setting up
> a non-profit foundation who redistribute MPL under permissive
> licensing.
> 
> It could be a clause that allows this as long as certain rights are
> removed (redistribution/modification), but that wouldn't have value
> for the community, just the proprietary end user.
> 
> Hen
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 
> 
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
> external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be
> disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-
> mail by anyone else is unauthorised.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately
> and delete this e-mail.
> Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or
> completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks.
> If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its
> Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.
> All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated
> virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem
> to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are
> virus free.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message