Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8084F180A7 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69358 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2016 07:46:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 69212 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2016 07:46:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 69202 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jan 2016 07:46:06 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:46:06 +0000 Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id EA9541A0040 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f171.google.com with SMTP id g73so144340656ioe.3 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:46:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.10.215 with SMTP id 84mr131838468iok.106.1452498365323; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:46:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.32.19 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:46:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <80AACBBE-6F39-4301-8E4E-8743A87BE8F1@classsoftware.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:46:05 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools? From: Henri Yandell To: ASF Legal Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fbc0e1a244405290a218b --001a113fbc0e1a244405290a218b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Assuming that's the case, thoughts inline: On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > > Is Singa "distributing this file as part of a program that contains a > configuration script generated by Autoconf"? > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Justin Mclean > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple >> of GPL (with special exclusion) in the source made by autoconf/automake.= It >> seems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it=E2=80=99s OK to di= stribute >> these files in Apache releases. >> >> However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it >> need to change? >> - This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. >> Except for this special exception which is! >> > - Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this >> special exception as OK? [4] >> > Could add a note to point out the Autoconf tooling is on the list because of the aforementioned 'FSF autoconf license' in Category A. Would also be good to get a href of some kind for the autoconf license. > >> For a release contain files in this manner: >> - Do we need to mention this in LICENSE? >> > Feels like it already is - ie) we distribute it under Apache 2.0. > - Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL >> with exception header text? >> >> I don't think so. > JFYI The text of the exclusion is: >> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you >> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a >> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under >> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. >> > --001a113fbc0e1a244405290a218b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Assuming that's the cas= e, thoughts inline:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache= .org> wrote:

Is Singa "distributing this file as part of a progra= m that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf"?

On= Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware= .com> wrote:
Hi,

While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple of = GPL (with special exclusion) in the source made by autoconf/automake. It se= ems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it=E2=80=99s OK to distrib= ute these files in Apache releases.

However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it ne= ed to change?
- This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Excep= t for this special exception which is!
<= /div>
- Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this s= pecial exception as OK? [4]

Could add a note to point out the Autoconf toolin= g is on the list because of the aforementioned 'FSF autoconf license= 9; in Category A. Would also be good to get a href of some kind for the aut= oconf license.
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
For a release contain files in this manner:
- Do we need to mention this in LICENSE?
=

Feels like it already is - ie) we di= stribute it under Apache 2.0.
=C2=A0
- Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL with= exception header text?


I= don't think so.
=C2=A0
JFYI The text of the exclusion is:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

--001a113fbc0e1a244405290a218b--