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 03:51:10 GMT
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Henri Yandell asked several questions:
> 1) Should it be feasible for a user to remove the code under the
> reciprocal license?
> Feasible? I wouldn't know.  Permitted?  Of course.

This is a policy decision the ASF needs to make. Currently the ASF
determines it should be simple to remove if needed (i.e. independent binary
files, category B, and a 'warning').

> 1.1) Or is it fine for an ASF product to, effectively, be under a
> reciprocal license (because removing the reciprocally licensed code is
> unfeasible)?
> That's fine today!  Apache code is in almost everything nowadays,
> including in reciprocally licensed software. I have no idea if removing
> that code would be unfeasible, but programmers can do almost everything
> once they are told by their managers that they must do it for private
> business reasons!

I said ASF product intentionally. i.e. Original works that the ASF release.
If it is not feasible to remove reciprocal licensing from an ASF product,
then that product might as well be under the reciprocal license. Again, a
policy decision to be made.

> 2) How easy should the ASF make it for it to be removed? What best
> practices should be applied?
> Why would you ask a lawyer a technical question that is a PMC decision?
> :-)
How easy should it be isn't a technical question, it's a policy decision;
and I ask it here because this is a list for a committee who make policy
decisions, not a list solely for the purpose of license study.

Currently this is a Legal Committee decision. It could be sent over to PMCs.

Before encouraging the mixing of reciprocal licensing into Apache 2.0
licensing, best practices should be suggested on how to identify the

> > 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
> codebase.
> I don't know for sure. But go to your Android phone; "Settings"; "About
> phone"; "Legal information"; "Open source licenses". Or ask Google.
> I happen to have a Samsung phone. Its EULA NOTICE also says this: "Certain
> items of the Software may be subject to open source licenses. The open
> source license provisions may override some of the terms of this EULA. We
> make the applicable open source licenses available to you on the Legal
> Notices section of the Settings menu of your device."
I doubt that they are mixing Apache 2.0 and reciprocal licensing in the
example manner I've described above. Regardless of whether your proposed
direction is the right one to take, I've seen no evidence of others using
your approach.


View raw message