www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:29:30 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> So let's say that the contribution includes a piece of code under a license with conditions
on derivative works.

That's likely to happen sooner or later. :-)  The sooner the better.

 

Then the contributor must comply with that reciprocal license, which will happen when he contributes
it to Apache with the source code. That derivative work remains under the reciprocal license
even though its source is available from and published by Apache and its license is published
in our NOTICE file. I believe that is sufficient compliance with all FOSS licenses.  

 

This is just how Microsoft and Google distribute their collective works with FOSS software
in it.

 

The entire collective work is independently copyrighted as:

 

Copyright (C) 2015 The Apache Software Foundation.

This software is licensed to you under ALv2.

Read the NOTICE file.

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

 

 

From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 3:15 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses

 

 

 

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/csv/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/csv/CSVFormat.java?r1=1638699
<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/csv/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/csv/CSVFormat.java?r1=1638699&r2=1641845>
&r2=1641845

Here we see an arbitrarily chosen contribution. See how the text in the contribution (arguably
the + lines) bears a resemblance to the state before (the - lines). Contribution is a derivative
work of the Apache product.

And so the contributor who entered those + and – lines presumably created a derivative work.
Then he contributed it back to Apache under the ALv2. Even I've used SVN for that kind of
stuff. What's so strange about that? Our website and procedures make that easy.

 

Apache itself didn't create a derivative work.

 

 

So let's say that the contribution includes a piece of code under a license with conditions
on derivative works.

You're saying that those conditions apply to the contribution to Apache, but at that point
Apache release it, it is now a collective work and the conditions no longer apply (allowing
for a very permissive policy because, hey, it's all collective work)?

Hen 

 


Mime
View raw message