Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B10C73FA for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 86214 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2011 18:07:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 86052 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2011 18:07:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 86045 invoked by uid 99); 5 Aug 2011 18:07:14 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:07:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.0 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of andrew.bayer@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.50] (HELO mail-vw0-f50.google.com) (209.85.212.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:07:07 +0000 Received: by vws14 with SMTP id 14so3166924vws.23 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:06:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=aKgLOS70gVbwax9L1hDmnGV69IW+hveiQXM45b65DZo=; b=f8ztleYGPqQvDtaLiP+e13mILiQegdqL0Ms36U9AfnyK415beQ0JCUFGLyRXW0t7he hbMmJseHDv6WPdEuwkpTfGTl0Xaox1QcBBZU53nYWZzUhzy3+WQX0eWIbFrEmNCNwTkp Oe+zZ9yG2tMQxvPlfhYUXZslMXbghVjLc+Ras= Received: by 10.52.174.199 with SMTP id bu7mr2538082vdc.295.1312567607070; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:06:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.187.197 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:06:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andrew Bayer Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:06:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question regarding dual licensing and the CPL To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51d2f30f68f3604a9c5f52b --bcaec51d2f30f68f3604a9c5f52b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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 > 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 > > > 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 > >> 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 > > --bcaec51d2f30f68f3604a9c5f52b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 o= ur
> modifications are on the ASL. So that's one Cat A and one Cat B. I= s 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 wou= ld 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/incu= bator/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=A0http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html=A0-
>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to in= clude 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 ri= ght 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


--bcaec51d2f30f68f3604a9c5f52b--