www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Bundling and LICENSE
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:21:33 GMT
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 23:18
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Bundling and LICENSE
> [ ... ] 
> [orcmid] 
>> I think a further
>> question also needs to be answered. While this issue is not fixed is it
>> OK to continue to make Apache releases that contain bundled MIT licensed
>> code but don’t abide by the terms of that MIT license?
> [orcmid] 
> Great way to state the question Justin.  I don't see how the answer can be other than
"No" for an Apache release.

It isn't quite that simple. The MIT license is (usually) a subset of the
Apache License terms, including the right to sublicense.  So, if a work
is truly MIT licensed and "The above copyright notice and this permission notice"
doesn't actually exist in the original file as created by the copyright owner,
we are under no obligation to add it if we distribute that work under the
Apache License (a sublicense).

However, this isn't an ideal way to operate.  Yes, suggest to the upstream that
they really should have a header on that file.  Feel free to add one to our source
code -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with us doing that anyway, even if the
origin doesn't respond or doesn't care, unless they specifically tell us not to.

Regardless, the absence of headers on a work doesn't imply we can't legally
redistribute the work.  Headers do not change the license -- they only document it.
Removal of such headers might be forbidden by a license, but that's different.

Don't panic.


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

View raw message