www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Sun, 24 May 2015 11:23:09 GMT
Why is it not "idle"? I wasn't aware we had a question on deck about
MPL/ALv2 aggregations.

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> This is not just an idle question: Would the authors and promoters of the
> MPL give the same answers to Apache as Mike Milinkovich gave below for the
> EPL? Are there any unique characteristics of MPL-licensed software that we
> should worry about in ASF aggregations other than what we'd need to do for
> any EPL-licensed contributions?
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
> *To:* lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
> License Policy
>
>
>
> On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
>
> Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
>
>
> Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our
> friends at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
>
>
> Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
>
> our other contributions and distributed software?
>
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
>
>
> IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
>
> essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
>
> of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
>
>
> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a
> comment on what notification *is* required.
>
>
> and (2) that
>
> anyone who modifies and redistributes ****derivative works of Eclipse software**
>
> must disclose the source code of ****those derivative works**.
>
>
> I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to
> "...disclose the source code...", it is to make that source code available
> under the Eclipse Public License.
>
> There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as providing a
> pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found.
> So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would hope
> that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where the source
> can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the relevant repository at
> eclipse.org would suffice.
>
> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
> that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
>

Mime
View raw message