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: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:55:41 GMT
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby asked a second good question:
>> Expanding on the original question:
>> can I take code that is licensed entirely under ALv2,
>> modify the code, and obey the conditions of the license,
>> and ship the result under a non-FOSS license.
>>
>> Lots of attorneys have come to the conclusion that the answer
>> to that question is yes.
>
> Me too!  YES!  Do it all the time! But "obey all the conditions of the (ALv2) license."

Just to be clear: you are saying that I can simultaneously "obey all
the conditions of the (ALv2) license" and "not ship the source code
for my modifications of code originally licensed under ALv2".

If so, we agree.

> And if perchance the Apache code includes MPLv2 components that you modify, the same
answer!  YES!  Do it all the time!  But "obey all the conditions of the (MPLv2) license for
those components."

Just to be clear: you are saying that I can simultaneously "obey all
the conditions of the (MPLv2) license" and "not ship the source code
for my modifications of the code originally licensed under MPLv2".

If so, we disagree.

If you are saying something else, then you are not addressing the
original question.

> By "ship the result under a non-FOSS license" I assume you mean closed source and proprietary.
YES!  There is nothing wrong with that as long as the FOSS components aren't hidden and their
license conditions are obeyed. That's not entirely "closed source and proprietary" in the
old-fashioned context, but you can't hide FOSS because of our ALv2 license conditions.

Again, when you say "the FOSS components", are you talking about the
original sources upon which the final work is based on?  If so, that's
not the question that I posed.

The question focuses on the modified components, portions of which
where originally made available under a FOSS license, and released
under a different (non-FOSS) license.  In the case described in the
original question, the non-FOSS license in question is a proprietary,
closed source license.

> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

- Sam Ruby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 6:20 PM
> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> Sam Ruby asked a very good question:
>>
>>> The question real live engineers are faced with, and make in
>>> consultation with real live corporate attorneys, is: can I take the
>>> entire work, make modifications, and ship the result in a closed
>>> source project?
>>
>> The real question?  The short answer is always NO.
>
> Lots of attorneys have demonstrably come to a different conclusion than "always NO".
 As several people have pointed out, this is done all the time.  I've even provided an example
(MSIE).
>
>> The degree of "closed source-ness" depends on the source and scope of
>> your modifications. Always. Those are called FOSS "license conditions"
>> (see, e.g., ALv2 § 4, MPLv2 § 3, BSD ¶ 1 and 2).  You must always obey
>> the conditions of the license(s) for the work(s) that you modify.
>>
>> Among those conditions, even for ALv2, is a level of publication of
>> the license and simple attribution of our copyright and provenance.
>> Anyone who reads those notices realizes that the ENTIRE SOURCE as
>> distributed by Apache is available for free at ASF. Some licenses
>> contain reciprocal or even strong patent conditions. Read the NOTICE file.
>
> I'd like to draw your attention the words "make modifications" in the fragment you quoted,
and expanded upon by [1].
>
>> Is that closed source enough for real life engineers? FOSS is never
>> completely hidden.
>
> Again, that's a different question.  Expanding on the original
> question: can I take code that is licensed entirely under ALv2, modify the code, and
obey the conditions of the license, and ship the result under a non-FOSS license.
>
> Lots of attorneys have come to the conclusion that the answer to that question is yes.
>
>> /Larry
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen
>>
>> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
>
> [1] https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201508.mbox/%3C27BD276B-E240-441A-B5AE-4BF5BCE38E51%40yahoo.com%3E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message