www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-109) [POLICY] Resolve "Unmodifiable Standards" Exception
Date Fri, 26 Dec 2014 06:33:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14258965#comment-14258965

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-109:

It seems to merge two different issues.

In one (no-modifications), the concern is over modifying the files and therefore breaking
the license.
In the other (weak-copyleft), the concern is over modifying the files and Apache having released
software under the weak copyleft license.

The latter seems very acceptable, the former much less so. 

I'm -1 (non-binding). 

> [POLICY] Resolve "Unmodifiable Standards" Exception 
> ----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-109
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-109
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Robert Burrell Donkin
>            Assignee: Robert Burrell Donkin
> ATM in "Previously Asked Questions"[1] (see below) an exception for small source documents
unlikely to be modified is included in the weak-copyleft section but is missing from the no-modifications.
I'm not clear that this was intentional, and understand that - in practice - projects already
use the exception for reasonable licenses which do not allow modification.
> I think it would be clearer to introduce a new category (category-s) which applies an
exception to both weak-copyleft licenses and some no-modification licenses used by some standards
> -------------------------------------------
>   How should so-called "Weak Copyleft" Licenses be handled?
>      ...
>     For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime

>     in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed

>     anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately
>     source is also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose

>     inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification.  
> <snip>
>   How should licenses that prevent modification be handled?[3]
>    There are licenses that give broad rights for redistribution of unmodified copies.

>    Such licenses are not open source, but they do satisfy the second and third 
>    guiding principles above.
>    Apache projects must not include material under such licenses in version control 
>    or in released source packages. It is however acceptable for a build process to 
>    automatically download such non-software materials like fonts and standardized data

>    and include them in the resulting binaries. Such use makes it clear that these 
>    dependencies are not a part of the open source code of the project.
> -------------------------------------------
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message