www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: New versions of CC licenses
Date Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:19:33 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:

> It is my understanding that one could take a product released under the Apache License,
Version 2.0, incorporate it into a product, and release the result under the terms of GPL
v3.  I believe that a similar statement can be made concerning MPL v2.  And for various proprietary
licenses.

 

That is right. And vice versa (excluding proprietary licenses) as long as by /incorporate/
you don't mean /create and distribute a derivative work/. 

 

Even if you do create and distribute a derivative work, that is allowed under the condition
that the derivative works of the GPL/MPL components themselves be under the non-Apache license.
Everyone now understands that about reciprocal FOSS licenses, and commercial companies live
with (or without!) that "restriction" all the time. Given that our goal is not to surprise
our customers with unexpected license restrictions, downstream distributors can read our NOTICE
files and take easy precautions /if they create and distribute a derivative work/. As I said
before, that is already commercially necessary due diligence.

 

Furthermore, customers who merely copy and use and distribute our software without modification
can ignore the entire issue; we comply with all licenses, therefore they comply. 

 

The only logical inconsistency between licenses is if you create a derivative work of /both/
an MPL and GPL combination simultaneously and as an integrated derivative work. I don't know
anyone who tries that. It was interesting for me to see that, because of their goal to be
friendly to the GPL, the new version of the MPL itself now allows that unique derivative work
combination with GPL software for those downstream distributors who want it. :-) But that
has nothing to do with anything that happens at Apache.

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile:  <http://linkd.in/XXpHyu> http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 

 

From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:16 AM
To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses

 

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

Sam Ruby wrote:

 

> My understanding is that the Apache License, Version 2 is widely considered to be "compatible"
with both licenses, in the sense that Apache code may be incorporated into products that are
released under the Mozilla and GPL licenses.

And my understanding is that the reverse is also true, as long as you don't try to distribute
a derivative work of Mozilla or GPL software under the Apache License.

 

I may have been unclear.  It is my understanding that one could take a product released under
the Apache License, Version 2.0, incorporate it into a product, and release the result under
the terms of GPL v3.  I believe that a similar statement can be made concerning MPL v2.  And
for various proprietary licenses.

All one needs to do is to comply with the terms of the Apache License, none of which preclude
you from doing the above.

What am I missing?

 

- Sam Ruby

 


Mime
View raw message