www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chesnay Schepler (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-392) Depending on Jepsen and the SOLIPSISTIC ECLIPSE PUBLIC LICENSE
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2018 15:43:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-392?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16535014#comment-16535014

Chesnay Schepler commented on LEGAL-392:

I have 2 questions that I would appreciate being answered, to better understand how licenses
should be interpreted.

The license does not give any right to "use" the "work", why is is this not a problem?

The conditions to "copy, modify and distribute the work" include "you do not believe the Eclipse
Foundation or the author exists" and "affirm publicly when referring to
the work [...] that the work does not exist".
It seems this conditions cannot realistically be fulfilled; is this section irrelevant since
we're not redistributing any code from jepsen?

> --------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-392
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-392
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Gary Yao
>            Priority: Major
> Hello Legal Affairs Committee,
> We want to add a project to the Apache Flink repository that has Jepsen 0.1.8 as
>  a dependency. The project is an optional tool that can be used to test Flink. It
>  is neither needed to build Flink, nor it would be shipped in the binary release.
>  Jepsen 0.1.8 is licensed under a joke license called the "SOLIPSISTIC ECLIPSE
>  PUBLIC LICENSE" [1]. Beginning with Jepsen 0.1.10, the license changed to the
>  Eclipse Public License [2], which makes it unambiguously clear that the library
>  can be included as a dependency in ASF projects. However, we want to avoid
>  upgrading to version 0.1.10 due to issues with that version.
> Assuming that we want to stick with 0.1.8, our questions are as follows:
>  # Is it acceptable to license the code, which depends on Jepsen, under the Apache License?
>  # Is it acceptable to include the code, which depends on Jepsen, in the git repository?
>  # Is it acceptable to include the code, which depends on Jepsen, in the source release?
> We found that Apache Kudu does all the things above [3] but we are not sure if
>  this is compliant.
> Thanks for any help!
> [1] [https://github.com/jepsen-io/jepsen/blob/0.1.8/jepsen/LICENSE.txt]
> [2] [https://github.com/jepsen-io/jepsen/blob/0.1.10/jepsen/LICENSE.txt]
> [3] [https://github.com/apache/kudu/tree/master/java/kudu-jepsen]

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message