www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Wed, 30 May 2012 09:41:01 GMT
On May 29, 2012 6:25 AM, "Michael Meeks" <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>        Thank you for your feedback.
> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 11:45 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >...
> > > M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> > > M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> > > M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
> >
> > I am not aware of the copyright owners ever licensing the code as
> > MPL2.  It's a fine license, but you can't just decide that for them.
> > You would need their permission to do so, just like we needed
> > permission to change it to the Apache License.
>        The code in question is available un-modified (modulo the
> license header) under both the LGPLv3-only and the AL2 (from an
> approved Apache incubator release). We would be re-basing onto the
> Apache licensed version.
>        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.

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

> > If you want to add a comment at the beginning of every file that
> > just directs people to your project
>        The intention is to ensure that the modified files are made
> available not under the terms of the AL2, but under the terms of the
> MPLv2. Incidentally all of our [ch]xx files will be modified from
> the Apache versions in various often mechanical ways.

The bulk of the files' content will be usable under ALv2. A downstream LO
consumer could strip your 3 changes and use it under ALv2. Of course, they
could also just use our original.

They could also extract a few of your changes, continue to license that
under MPLv2, and combine it with AOO and proprietary work for their own
product. Given statements in the FAQ on your wiki, it seems you've accepted
the weaker copyleft and this potential result. (Yeah, I know that doesn't
make you guys happy :-/ )

> > I suggest you just leave each file's headers as they are until
> > changes are made that you don't want to submit to the ASF
>        I suspect that it is neither useful or on-topic to discuss the
> politics here;

I seriously doubt that was Roy's intent.

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 :-) )



View raw message