www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:20:55 GMT
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Sam, thanks for finding that blog post [1]. Here's the final sentence of
> that post:
>
>
>
> For the advantage of all users, I encourage everyone interested in working
> on the OpenOffice codebase to draw his own conclusions. Mine are clear;
> help us at Apache or be so kind to release it on Apache, too. That's the
> way to reach the broadest possible user base for your feature. A lot of
> users will thank you for it :-)
>
>
>
> I am delighted to read this. The notion that our contributors would also
> want to cooperate with other non-Apache projects by contributing to both is
> one of the blessings of the open source development paradigm.  And because
> /that contributor/ gave /his contribution/ to /both/ Apache and
> LibreOffice, there is no license incompatibility for us or LibreOffice to
> worry about. This situation is simple to analyze and has nothing to do with
> the issue we're now debating.
>
>
An excerpt from the blog post showing the relevance to this discussion:

It shows the flow of source between Apache OpenOffice and projects based on
the general OpenOffice codebase thanks to the permissive Apache 2 License (
ALv2 <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>). I added my stuff
to Apache with the goal to get it into all OpenOffice derivatives, and
that's exactly what ALv2 allows, as this example shows.

To drive the point home: there is a one-way compatibility between the
Apache License, Version 2, and [L]GPLv3, in that one can take code under
ALv2, create a derivative work, and distribute that work under the terms of
[L]GPLv3.  The reverse is not true.

The GPL set of licenses are in no way unique in this regard.  The same
thing is true for the latest version of the Mozilla public license.  And
for a number of proprietary licenses.

My point is that this isn't considered unfortunate by the Apache Software
Foundation, it is intentional and by design.

And the third party licensing policy is a part of that.  Originally
developed by Cliff, it categories licenses based on their affect on the
ability of our licensees to make use of our work.


> Note also that this blog post isn't an official Apache announcement that
> our Apache License can be ignored by LibreOffice.
>

I beg you, please stop the use of straw mans.  Absolutely nobody has
suggested that.

The point is that it is quite possible for third parties to comply with the
terms of our license and distribute the results under different terms, and
that the Apache Software Foundation is entirely OK with that.

- Sam Ruby

Mime
View raw message