www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Including / forking Apache 2.0 licensed code into an ASF project
Date Tue, 03 Oct 2017 18:39:00 GMT
The way I'm reading here https://www.apache.org/le
gal/resolved.html#category-a

Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
>


Apache License 2.0


To me "work" means the source code. The JAR is just a machine-translated
derived work.

I don't believe we are restricted to including only machine-translated
derived works.

BTW, what if this was another language, like PHP? (Do PHP libraries even
come in a binary format?)

> I thought even "sucking in the source" is ok if treated as a Cat-A
third-party dependency.

Agreed.

> But if you are modifying 3rd-party ALv2 source, you should consider
contributing those changes back to the external project.  It will greatly
simplify future bundling of the external project's source and improve the
greater open source world.

Of course, this is just common courtesy. Contributors could be encouraged
to also submit changes upstream. Although there's also nothing stopping
upstream to pick our changes since it's the same license.

As to our changes, new files would get the ASF license header. Not sure
about modified files -- a guess these would need a paragraph in the NOTICE
file?



--emi

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> I thought even "sucking in the source" is ok if treated as a Cat-A
> third-party dependency.  I thought we think of these things as communities
> more than code.  If a 3rd party has a active project outside of the ASF but
> is using ALv2 but doesn't want to be an ASF project, you can still use
> their source and copy it into your source release and even modify it, but
> you can't change the header to the ASF header.  The 3rd-party source should
> continue to have the ALv2 header.  I would recommend noting that some of
> the code is 3rd-party in LICENSE.  That was recommended on this list a
> while back.
>
> But if you are modifying 3rd-party ALv2 source, you should consider
> contributing those changes back to the external project.  It will greatly
> simplify future bundling of the external project's source and improve the
> greater open source world.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:08 AM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Including / forking Apache 2.0 licensed code into an ASF
> project
>
>
> But existing practices would also allow you to use it as a binary
> dependency.
>
> Sucking in the source is where you need to be more formal.
>
> On Oct 3, 2017 7:54 PM, "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The MXNet thread would suggest you need an ICLA/SGA from every
>> contributor to that plugin, unless the project owners have the rights to
>> speak on the contributors behalf ;)
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Emilian Bold <emilian.bold@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm talking about https://github.com/Blazemeter/jmeter-bzm-plugins/tree/
>>> master/http2
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FBlazemeter%2Fjmeter-bzm-plugins%2Ftree%2Fmaster%2Fhttp2&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cec02b38807a44d607f1d08d50a89b710%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426508951502881&sdata=Vb9K6qwAOVo5PMLc6ZnPZBZd2s56o%2FuFgiTcdU8d258%3D&reserved=0>
>>> which is about 5000 lines of Java code.
>>>
>>> In the README https://github.com/Blazemeter/jmeter-bzm-plugins/blob
>>> /master/README.md
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FBlazemeter%2Fjmeter-bzm-plugins%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FREADME.md&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cec02b38807a44d607f1d08d50a89b710%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636426508951502881&sdata=Mii2yI5DTkeuiJEmRNF%2BH%2FZxrxbXRWdprsPYd8FI8r4%3D&reserved=0>
>>> they mention
>>>
>>> > The plugins are proudly contributed to community as Open Source, under
>>> Apache 2.0 License.
>>>
>>> So I believe they are aware what the Apache 2.0 license means.
>>>
>>> > I take it from you comments that you can't get permission from the
>>> authors of the plugin?
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean from this. What kind of permission?
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to get the code donated to the ASF but we have
>>> yet reached out to the owners in this regard.
>>>
>>> Right now JMeter just needs this feature (HTTP2 support) and the
>>> existing plugin implements it under a good license so it seems like a good
>>> way forward for JMeter to just try and use that code instead of spending
>>> much more time re-implementing the same thing.
>>>
>>> In the end it might turn out that we have to reimplement it anyhow, but
>>> it seems good to know what our licensing options are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --emi
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ideally we would compile it ourselves and might even have to tweak the
>>>>> plugin a bit. That means importing the sources (under Apache 2.0 license,
>>>>> but not owned by the ASF) into the repository and doing some changes
(by
>>>>> JMeter contributors) on top of those sources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I take it from you comments that you can't get permission from the
>>>> authors of the plugin?
>>>>
>>>> Getting some indication from the authors that the understand what
>>>> putting the Apache license on their code actually means would be a very
>>>> good practice.
>>>>
>>>> How large is the plugin?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message