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: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Date Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:32:35 GMT
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Ralph Goers
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Why not?  As I read that license page the exception basically says “ignore
> the LGPL, whatever license you are using is what this library also uses”.
> Their exception seems to toss out sections 4 & 5 of the LGPL.
>
> As I read it you can modify the zeromq library and you are required to “pass
> along” the special exception - which means that it can be incorporated into
> a work under any license you want, which would presume that if the license
> prohibits distribution of the source then that is fine.

My experience is that companies with deep pockets are not going to
take the position that "Gee, the ASF found a loophole that relieves us
from the obligations of the original license, I guess we are good to
go then!".  Your experience may be different.

And I'll note that that's not just my experience, the folks who
maintain ZeroMQ acknowledge that their license has proven to be
problematic for corporate lawyers to accept:

http://zeromq.org/area:licensing

Thankfully, it is not for me to evaluate any more.  :-).  But my read
is that Jim wouldn't want the ASF to accept this uncertainty.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> At the end of COPYING.LESSER there is this:
>
> Note: this exception relieves you of any obligations under sections 4 and 5 of this license,
and section 6 of the GNU General Public License.
>
> What isn’t clear to me is what happens to section 2 of the LGPL.  The fact that it
clearly states that you can “copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of
your choice” means to me that whatever distribution requirements there might be under section
2 of the LGPL don’t apply.
>
> The way I read what is left of this license after the exclusion is that it is no worse
than the Eclipse license.

As for LGPL, that's already in
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html as a Category X license.  If
somebody braver than I wishes to reopen that can of worms, feel free.
As for me, I'll sit that one out.  From my perspective, there is a
legitimate difference of opinion as to how LGPL can be interpreted,
and Jim's clear position is that in such case, we will take a
conservative position.  I support Jim on this approach.

> Ralph

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message