www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:29:13 GMT
On 11.08.2015, at 19:28, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Consumption of MPL code is ok if it is included in binary form (read "as a library")
and for small portions of unmodified source [1].
> 
> I agree in principle. Aggregating and distributing software as binary libraries (i.e.,
as independent code objects that perform specific functions, "modules") is very good practice.
 But the people on legal-discuss@ (including me) are not the technical people who would decide
which "small portions" are appropriate. The AOO PMC is. We should encourage them to do so.
> 
> The only still incompatible part of your statement above is the current Apache policy
requirement that it be "in binary form." That isn't MPLv2.  That isn't FOSS!  That isn't Apache!
 Publish the source and I'm happy.  Stop distinguishing binary from source; it is the *same*
copyrighted work.

C'mon... the "binary form" here is again a practicality - a simple for form of saying "a large
block of FOSS code under such a license can be used provided that there is a clear cut boundary
between that block and the code of the project that uses it". There is no implication that
the source form for that binary form would not be available. 

Instead of "binary form" saying "external library" might be a more appropriate form. The Jenkins
guys have a better formulation for this IMHO [1]:

• CDDL, CPL, EPL, and MPL, and LGPL (these licenses require that derivative works to be
under the same license as the original license, so the source code needs to be separated into
its own repository, but binaries can be used as dependencies to the core.)

With the key statement being "the source code needs to be separated into its own repository".
Such a repository would not be hosted at ASF though because ASF projects are under the ASL
license. The repo could be hosted at any place or foundation that has a different policy.

Incompatibility resolved?

Cheers,

-- Richard

[1] https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Document#GovernanceDocument-3rdpartylibrarylicensesinthecore

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


Mime
View raw message