www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Sun, 02 Aug 2015 00:31:45 GMT
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> 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.
And we must comply with that (using your term) reciprocal license.
Fortunately that's often the case for Apache licensed software. I'm still
uncomfortable calling this a collective work given the code is not separate
and independent. Moving on though...

Our users also must comply with that reciprocal license, or remove the
relevant code.

What policy are you proposing for removal. For example:

1) Should it be feasible for a user to remove the code under the reciprocal
1.1) Or is it fine for an ASF product to, effectively, be under a
reciprocal license (because removing the reciprocally licensed code is
2) How easy should the ASF make it for it to be removed? What best
practices should be applied?

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

Collective works are boring. I want to see your examples that are akin to
the above - Microsoft/Google projects under Apache 2.0, that have
reciprocally licensed snippets of code splattered throughout the Apache 2.0


View raw message