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: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Sat, 01 Aug 2015 02:25:39 GMT
The summary I've drawn thus far from far too many emails is:

* Elements of a "Larger Work" under an Open Source license do not affect
the licensing of other elements within that Larger Work; with some
exceptions (Larry noting GPLv2 in a static linking 'doctrine').
* This is not true for Open Source licences within a Derivative Work (US
Copyright term).

[Note: Larger Work needs defining. Is it the same as Collective
Work/Compilation (US Copyright terms)?]

Personally I think everyone involved already knew this and have spent a
month and more arguing past each other.

Continuing further:

* I contend Apache primarily releases works/Derivative Works and not Larger
Works (though that will depend on whether the definition of Larger Work is
not Collective/Compilation).
* As such our policy is primarily focused on ensuring that the license
conditions applying to our works (be they Derivatives or 'original'), are
equal to the license conditions found in the Apache License 2.0.
* We break our policy into three sections:

#1 Inclusion of works under a license whose conditions are a subset of the
conditions found in Apache License 2.0 - Category A.
#2 Non-inclusion of works under a license whose conditions are NOT a subset
of the conditions found in Apache License 2.0 - Category X.
#3 Inclusion of works under a license whose conditions are NOT a subset of
the conditions found in Apache License 2.0, BUT within a specific form of
use ARE a subset of the conditions found in Apache License 2.0 - Category B.

We are conservative with the forms of uses we have approved for #3. The
forms of uses approved could be changed, and our approach is to wait on the
reasons to justify changing them.


None of this is rocket science. Is Binary use of MPL conservative? Yes.
Could it change? Yes. Is there any reason to change? Limited evidence. Does
changing MPL mean we should change CDDL? Probably. Does it mean we should
change on EPL? Maybe, the licenses share a lot in spirit. How about NPL,
IPL and CPL? Probably not, let's encourage those licenses to go away. Does
it mean we should change on CC-BY-SA or LGPL? No, they're significantly
different to MPL.


On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Larry Rosen wrote:
> > > [2] See OSD #2, "The program must include source code, and must allow
> distribution in source code as well as compiled form...."
> Sam Ruby responded:
> > Now we get to an important point.  That's a constraint on *US* if we
> wish to conform to the OSD.  The OSD does NOT require us to place that
> constraint on those that license code from us.  This is an important point,
> as the Apache License, Version 2.0 (like MIT, BSD, X11, etc) does NOT
> include that restriction.
> I believe that you are misreading that OSD provision. Apache and other
> software is FOSS. We *always* publish source code as our licenses require.
> So should everyone else who distributes it. Are you aware of any FOSS
> software that is entirely hidden and not available somewhere in source form
> for free?
> Please stop calling it a "constraint" or a "restriction" on FOSS-licensed
> code. You told us a few days ago that you (and probably the company that
> employs you) gratefully use Firefox. What's the constraint or restriction
> on you? On the other hand, the MPL license sets conditions that require you
> to make the source code and license available if you distribute, and to
> license your derivative works under the same license. Big deal! The adults
> in this business do that all the time. Your own employer and its vendors
> and customers do that all the time.
> And please stop confusing "creating software derivative works" with
> "finely marbled beef" or "peeing in a pool." Legal and software technical
> terms are important and deserve more respect.
> This is what our Apache policy says about the MPL and other reciprocal
> licenses: "Software under the following licenses may be included in binary
> form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled."
> The nonsense here is not that we gratefully accept the MPL but that you
> limit us to binary form, as if that makes a difference for MPL "publish the
> source" and other license conditions.
> /Larry

View raw message