www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Sat, 07 Dec 2013 05:10:05 GMT
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 09:47:36AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> My understanding is that the MPL version 4 

(assume you mean 2 :)

> and the GPL version 3 are more
> restrictive than the Apache License, Version 2.

That's probably close enough to being true that I'm comfortable with
saying it's true.
 
> 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.
> 
> Is my understanding wrong?

No ...

One parenthetical note - I am not sure you're right about the "widely
considered" part. I sometimes use phrases like that myself, when
speaking of similar things. But the reality is that the issue is
esoteric. The small number of people who care about things like this
tend to be satisfied that the drafters/stewards of GPLv3 and MPLv2 say
that ALv2 is compatible with those licenses and seem to mean some
notion of incorporability under the umbrella of the apparently more
restrictive license. 

But leaving that aside, what "incorporated in" and "released under"
actually mean -- what's actually going on legally -- seems to really
be what is being disputed here. The meaning of the concepts may be
less clear or more debatable than you might be assuming. I am not even
sure I know what you mean when you use the word 'product'. And some of
this seems to go beyond what's purely legal and into commercial (and
open source community) custom.

 - RF







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


Mime
View raw message