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: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Sun, 24 May 2015 15:29:51 GMT
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> This quote:
>
>> 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*.
>
> Is this any changes made to EPL licensed source code, or is it viral like
> GPL?

This is changes made to EPL licensed source code.

> Isn't this derivative works question and answer the best way to distinguish
> between class A, B and X?
>
> Whatever changes to policy that may be made these should simplify a
> project's decision about incorporating other code.
>
> Something as simple as:
>
> Class A - commingle freely with AL code.
> Class B - keep source separate, link to "original",  readme with downstream
> warnings about what functionality is lost.
> Class X - use only if completely unaltered. Source code is not used in
> product only libraries and binaries that are unaltered. Keep source only to
> protect from disappearance of the project in a private archive.
>
> All FOSS can be used and then the question becomes how and PMCs can decide
> if their community can accept use within the above looser guidelines.

That is a fair, rough approximation of the current policy.  Rough
approximations produce good answers most of the time, but occasionally
produce incorrect answers.

More on that subject here:

https://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html

> I think this may be what Larry is driving towards, but it is hard to tell in
> the blizzard of emails and ad hominem.

My read is that Larry is effectively suggesting that we treat all OSI
approved licenses (and at other times, he has included all CC licenses
in this) as category A.  In the specific case of GPL, he appears to
come to a different conclusion than the one that the FSF has posted on
this matter:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation

On this matter, I very much like Jim's approach[1].

Applied here, Jim's approach would suggest that any discussion
concerning what the correct legal interpretation of, for example, the
GPL license is, and furthermore any discussion as to the effectiveness
of the license in question, are simply moot.  As a policy, we simply
aren't going to do that.  Instead, we are going to respect the wishes
of the authors of the code in question.

In the case of EPL, that generally means that we will either release
modifications under the terms of the EPL instead of ALv2 -- or we will
chose not to make modifications.  In the case of GPL, it generally
means that we will release code that is intended to run in the same
process under the terms of the GPL -- or chose not to bundle GPL code
that is intended to run in the same process as our code.  If there are
special exceptions, we will evaluate those exceptions in context.

Alternately, we may approach the authors of the code to make the code
in question available under a different license or with a special
exception, and in the process test the boundary of assertions like
those made by Mike that "We certainly want to do whatever is necessary
to ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code".

> Regards,
> Dave

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201505.mbox/%3C9EF14C60-E30E-4152-B399-322C77D1D0AA%40jaguNET.com%3E

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 23, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>
>> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
>> that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
>
>
> Mike, as always from you, wonderful!
>
>
>
> Me too! That's why I proposed an unambiguous new Apache Third Party License
> Policy. I have had no worse motives than that.
>
>
>
> /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)

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


Mime
View raw message