www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Sun, 08 Dec 2013 22:25:42 GMT
On 12/07/2013 03:34 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 04:10:23PM -0500, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>>> In my hypo from a few notes ago, A distributes software to B under
>>> AL2.0.  B combines it with GPL code and distributes the result to C under
>>> the GPL. As far as C is concerned, the GPL is the only license it needs
>>> to read in order to understand what rights it gets from B, even for A's
>>> code.  AL2.0 is in the notices file and C can review that if it wants to,
>>> but if there ever is a dispute between B and C, the license of record,
>>> the terms that get submitted to the court for interpretation, is the GPL,
>>> right?
>> Maybe, maybe not, depending on what the dispute is about. "The only
>> license it needs to read" is not correct. C needs to read the Apache
>> License 2.0 to understand fully the rights it is getting and the
>> requirements or obligations it has to upstream licensors.
>>
>> The Apache License does not *vanish*.
>>
>
> I'm having trouble reconciling this with what the LibreOffice community
> does (with our blessing!).  Note that there are no mentions at all of
> Apache on either of the following pages:
>
> http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/
> http://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/faq/licensing-faq/
>
> That project certainly gives the strong impression that LGPL2 (and MPL) are
> "the only license it needs to read"... for licensees of that project.
>

If I choose a random package from LibreOffice, libreoffice-base, and I 
look at Debian's "Copyright" file for it, I see:
http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs/main/libr/libreoffice/libreoffice_3.5.4+dfsg2-0+deb7u2_copyright

I see inside AL2.0, for example for Apache Lucene package:
 > Files: ext-sources/*lucene*
 > Copyright: Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation
 > Copyright: Copyright 2005 The Apache Software Foundation
 > Copyright: Copyright 2007 The Apache Software Foundation
 > License: Apache-2.0

I also see SPL1.0, BSD 3 and 4 clause, W3C, a modified BSD 4-clause, and 
even GPLv1 and GPLv2.

I chose to look at Debian because I trust Debian to find immediately 
reliable information on the package licensing.

If I wanted to take and modify Apache Lucene, I might be able to do so 
from here, under AL 2.0. I'd make more checks in this case for various 
reasons (i.e. what exactly the package contains, is it complete and 
unmodified), but for a first sight, it doesn't look to me like AL 2.0 is 
not AL 2.0 for it.

Also, I would not and could not conclude from these pages, that GPL v1 
and GPL v2 were *erased*, and replaced with LGPL v3 or MPL 1.1. :)


-- 
~enyst

"Excuse me, Professor Lessig, but may I ask you to sign this CLA, so 
that we have legally your permission to distribute your CC-licensed words?"

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


Mime
View raw message