www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Mon, 11 May 2015 15:39:42 GMT
I must point out that those GPL’d dictionaries are included in AOO installer binaries only,
are optional components, and do not appear in the source-code releases themselves.  Users
can also obtain more such components, as plug-ins, and add them to an AOO binary configuration
themselves.
 
Please stop using examples that avoid the key issue, which is comingling in the source code
release and, most importantly, comingling in individual files of such releases.  That is what
the ASF policy addresses.  It is irrelevant how source-code licenses are transitive into the
binaries.  The policy is about the source code as those capable of using it would encounter
it.
 
These deflections are not helpful.
 
I would also like to know who the “our” are with respect to the proposed “our Proposed
Apache Third Party Licensing Policy.”
 
 
-- Dennis E. Hamilton
    orcmid@apache.org
     <mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org> dennis.hamilton@acm.org    +1-206-779-9430
     <https://keybase.io/orcmid> https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
    X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
 
 
 
 
 
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 19:35
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
 
Don't be scared, Brane. I'm not trying to get you or Apache involved in some lawsuit. If YOU
are afraid of the GPL, then don't incorporate such components in your projects. But don't
dictate a GPL policy for MY project. Point of evidence: AOO already includes GPL dictionaries
in its distributed Apache software. I bet nobody gives a damn.
 
/Larry
 
 
From: Branko Čibej [mailto:brane@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 7:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> 
Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
 
On 11.05.2015 00:58, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
> GPLv3 is an OSI-approved license.
 
Yes it is. I was wondering when someone here would notice that and blare at me with red eyes!
 :-)
 
1. It is not up to me but to the PMC itself to determine that a GPLv3 component would be useful
in an Apache project. My personal standard is: Technical value to the project, not which open
source license was applied by that third party contributor/licensor. All these licenses, including
GPLv3, are FREE, so users won't care (nor most even notice). 

I'm not interested in the technical aspects; that's not what we're discussing here.


2. Most copyright attorneys recognize that the mere incorporation of a copy of a GPLv3 component
into an aggregation does not affect the aggregation's license regardless of some GPL folklore.

Now I'm scared. Waving away as "folklore" what has been the published intent and and policy
of the FSF since its inception seems like a rather cavalier attitude.

Did I misunderstand what I've been told for decades, that, effectively, what most copyright
attorneys recognize is irrelevant until proved in court? And do you think the ASF wants to
be involved in a turf war over licensing in the open source world?



Fear should not dominate our general policy. Last week I passed along a note describing a
project by Jim Wright (Oracle), Richard Fontana (HP), and other lawyers to eliminate much
GPL fear by a simple declaration by reasonable licensors to the effect that "incorporation
into any open source project is fine with them." Stand by for intelligent suggestions from
people who are going to tame the GPL for Apache.

Any licensor has always had the option to use whatever license they please, including modifying
or adding exceptions to the GPL. If Oracle or HP (or Mozilla or Eclipse or younameit) want
to make their open source stuff more Apache-friendly, more power to them; and they can just
use ALv2. But there are thousands of open-source projects out there and a significant proportion
of them use copyleft-like licenses. Do you really think it's in our interest to tell all those
people that we don't care what they've been told their license means? Surely the ASF doesn't
want to become the bull in the FLOSS china shop.

-- Brane

Mime
View raw message