www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Meeks <michael.me...@suse.com>
Subject Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Wed, 30 May 2012 13:05:09 GMT
Hi Greg,

	Good to see you here :-) and thank you for the helpful
feedback and discussion. It can only be hoped that I'll eventually
find the hermenutical key I'm apparently missing around the ALv2.

	I collated your two replies into one mail to shrink the
thread; I hope that's ok. Of course, IANAL, please be patient with me,
I'm exploring the corners of the license here.

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:41 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 29, 2012 6:25 AM, "Michael Meeks" <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
> >        I'm not aware of any re-distribution clause in the AL2 (section 4
> > or otherwise) that forbids re-distribution of AL2 under a copy-left
> > license such as the MPLv2. Indeed, I had understood that this was an
> > explicit goal of the MPLv2 process, and indeed the GPLv3 process.
> Your larger Work can be released under MPLv2, but there is no right
> under ALv2 for you to relicense that *specific* code.

	Perhaps it's worth referencing the ALv2 text, and perhaps to
simplify, can we take it for read that the 'Work' is Apache OO.o
(incubating)'s recent release, and that Licensor is the ASF.

	The distinction between the Work itself, and a trivial subset
of the Work (as made by eg. deleting all files except perhaps the
NOTICE, a copy of the ALv2 and a single file of interest with a
modified notice) is not that clear to me either. Are you arguing for a
real distinction there ? Surely the ALv2 allows re-use of portions of
the Work as well as the whole.

> (it seems you've already got this part, given else-thread, but
> hoping to clarify; redistribution vs relicense)

	So - I suspect that the term the ALv2 uses in section 2 is
sub-license here "each Contributor grants to You a ... copyright
license to ... sublicense, and distribute the Work and
such Derivative works in Source or Object form". Does that help ?
clearly 're-licensing' as previously discussed is a rather imprecise
description. Perhaps sub-licensing the Source form of the Work under
the MPLv2 is more helpful ?

	I was lead to believe that one of the flagship benefits of the
ALv2 was the ability to ship binaries with or without modifications to
any given file, under your choice of license. I see only small
differences between the treatment of Source and Object forms in the
license. Does a different situation hold for the Source form ?

> My reading of his subtext/diplomacy is that you have little right to
> change the headers unless/until you make copyrightable changes to
> the file which you don't want to fall under ALv2, Section 5. (and if
> it wasn't his thought, then whatever... I believe that to be true,
> so ascribe the thought to me :-) )

	Let me ascribe it to you, since I took Roy's helpful advice to
be about the wisdom (or otherwise) of making a (C) claim :-) I hear
about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically
being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the
ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally
submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available
to others under the ALv2.

	It is of course, possible that freedesktop.org (or whomever
hosts the repository) becomes the Licensor as they re-distribute ALv2
covered code: is that a common interpretation ? that would create a
network of sub-licensing under the same ALv2 license which seems
reasonable; or is it Apache's interpretation that it remains the
Licensor as the Work is re-distributed ?

	It is also unclear to me that a sub-license of the Work
eg. with proprietary changes, under a commercial license is itself the
Work. That may also interact with Section 5's use of Contribution:
"for inclusion in the Work".

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:20 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> >        More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe the
> > (C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.
> It would seem that all the commits made under the TDF CLA (ISTR you
> had one for your committers; and wow... three acronyms in a
> row... do I win?) are licensed to the TDF under MPLv2. The rest of
> LO is under ALv2 post-rebasing.

	You definitely win the acronym war :-) This seems to be 
a re-statement of the impossibility of sub-licensing ALv2 covered Work
under the MPLv2 without adding any work of authorship; hopefully we
can clarify how that is proscribed in response to the above.

> (and a secondary issue of how to describe copyright ownership, if at all)

	Yep - I think that is settled :-)

	Anyhow - thanks for the input ! sorry for so many, no doubt
rather basic questions all at once.



michael.meeks@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

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

View raw message