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.


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!

 

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?  :-)

> 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."

Good work by them!

/Larry

 

From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 5:32 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses

 

 

 

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 license?
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)?

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 codebase.

 

Hen