www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Wed, 20 May 2015 21:25:25 GMT
Larry,  you are welcome.  However, the other link you forwarded [1] has a section named "Can
I write proprietary code that links to a shared library that's open source?”.  It basically
answers the very question you are asking - namely, that there are cases where you cannot take
code written under the Apache License, combine it with code licensed under the GPL (regardless
of whether the code is explicitly included or only dynamically linked via a Java JAR file)
and then distribute that under a proprietary license. Furthermore, links such as this [2]
by the FSF explicitly call out what their position is on how works are combined even when
using dynamic linking - once bound together the whole aggregation needs to abide by the terms
of the license, not just the included work.

To me, the fundamental purpose of the Apache license is to allow anyone to do whatever they
want with the software, including modifying it and including it in their proprietary product
with no requirements to do so.  If an Apache project were to directly or indirectly require
software that uses a license that requires anyone to meet certain requirements in order to
create and distribute their software under whatever license they choose that project would
not be meeting the goals of the ASF.


[1] - http://opensource.org/faq#linking-proprietary-code <http://opensource.org/faq#linking-proprietary-code>
[2] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html>
> On May 20, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>> My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0" 
>>> is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>> I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. 
> Larry Rosen suggested: 
>> The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: "Of course. All FOSS licenses 
>> are compatible for aggregations.”
> Ralph Goers then responded:
>> The fundamental problem here is that it seems that most of the rest of us
>> disagree completely with this statement. I know I do. Yes, I am not an attorney,
>> but I don’t need to be to express that the many conversations I have had
>> with attorneys for the companies I have worked for and that their (possibly
>> incorrect) opinions are the reason why we would prefer to be overly conservative.
> Thank you Ralph!
> That is EXACTLY the reason why we moved this conversation to legal-discuss@apache.org,
which is a public email list that anyone can read and copy. I'm now also copying license-discuss@opensource.org
and the European Legal Network <ftf-legal@fsfeurope.org>.  I'm hoping for responses
from attorneys. I'm fully prepared to ride my horse into the sunset if other attorneys tell
me I'm inventing copyright law.
> I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys say something
> /Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:18 PM
> To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
> <snip>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message