www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-298) Is SCSL 3.0 license acceptable?
Date Sat, 15 Apr 2017 01:42:42 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15969773#comment-15969773
] 

Marvin Humphrey commented on LEGAL-298:
---------------------------------------

The SCSL is not an Open Source license, and has never been represented as one by Sun, it's
author.  Consider the Executive Summary from the SCSL rationale document _Sun Community Source
License Principles_ by Richard P. Gabriel and Bill Joy:

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/SUN/S981209G.pdf

{quote}
Community Source creates a community of widely available software source code just as does
the Open Source model, but with two significant differences requested by our licensees, as
follows:

* compatibility among deployed versions of the software is required and enforced through testing
* proprietary modifications and extensions including performance improvements are allowed

These important differences and other details make Community Source a powerful combination
of the best of the proprietary licensing and the more contemporary open source technology
licensing models.
{quote}

Section II of the SCSL 3.0 explicitly forbids commercial use except in conjunction with the
Commercial Use Supplement ("CUSupp"), effectively a second license appended to the SCSL:

{quote}
COMMERCIAL USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNOLOGY IS PERMITTED ONLY UNDER OPTIONAL SUPPLEMENTS/ATTACHMENTS
TO THIS LICENSE.
{quote}

The CUSupp elaborates on the definition of "Commercial Use":

{quote}
"Commercial Use" means uses and distributions of Covered Code for any direct or indirect commercial
or strategic gain or advantage.
{quote}

An explicit agreement with the Original Contributor (Sun, now Oracle) is required for the
CUSupp to take force:

{quote}
This Commercial Use Supplement General Terms ("CUSupp") is required for Commercial Use of
Covered Code and shall be made effective as to any Technology specified in a Technology Specific
Attachment once such Technology Specific Attachment is signed by You and Original Contributor.
{quote}

My analysis is that the SCSL belongs in Category X, under the subcategory "Non-commercial
licenses".

I suggest that Hive research whether the jar file in question is available under another license.


> Is SCSL 3.0 license acceptable?
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-298
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-298
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Alan Gates
>
> Apache Hive includes a jar in its binary distribution that is licensed under SCSL 3.0
(http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/SCSL3.0.rtf).  As this license is not listed on
the "resolved" page we are not sure if this is an acceptable license or not.  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

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


Mime
View raw message