www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question regarding dual licensing and the CPL
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:06:27 GMT
Ah, my bad on the wording. That end result is what I was afraid of - we'll
yank the class for now and figure out how to replace it.

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>wrote:

> That's not what 'dual licensing' means at all. Dual licensing happens
> when the original copyright owner licenses under two (or more)
> licenses. The case in which you take a work under licence L1 and make
> a derived work, and announce that you are only licensing your
> modifications under L2, isn't a dual license. I think the technical
> term is a train wreck.
>
> If the original author licensed only CPL, and will not execute a grant
> to the Foundation, then you need to either use that code as a binary
> dependency from elsewhere or write your own.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It's got the CPL since that's its original license, and then our
> > modifications are on the ASL. So that's one Cat A and one Cat B. Is there
> > anything in particular we need to do for that?
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> What's the other dual-license? As long as one is cat A you would be OK.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi -
> >> > One of the class files in the new Bigtop incubator project
> >> >
> >> > (
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
> )
> >> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
> >> > But
> >> > the CPL is a Category B license
> >> > on http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
> >> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and
> >> > if
> >> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
> the
> >> > class or get rid of it entirely? I'm not sure what the right process
> >> > would
> >> > be here. Thanks!
> >> > A.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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