Return-Path: 
 <legal-discuss-return-2727-apmail-legal-discuss-archive=apache.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 78689 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2008 11:06:02 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Mar 2008 11:06:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 13967 invoked by uid 500); 30 Mar 2008 11:06:00 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 13713 invoked by uid 500); 30 Mar 2008 11:06:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
List-Id: <legal-discuss.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org
Received: (qmail 13702 invoked by uid 99); 30 Mar 2008 11:06:00 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:06:00 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [195.188.213.6] (HELO smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk)
 (195.188.213.6)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:05:09 +0000
Received: from [172.23.170.144] (helo=anti-virus03-07)
	by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1JfvLi-0007Gq-Bc; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:05:18 +0100
Received: from [82.38.65.6] (helo=[10.0.0.27])
	by asmtp-out1.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.52)
	id 1JfvLh-0002eM-RE; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:05:17 +0100
Subject: Re: Apache License 2.0
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>,
 Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com>,
 Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <3d4032300803291051l4118d3c1gcc0086f6499de747@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4561488-D348-4B60-90F4-83108BB5FE72@Sun.COM>
	 <3d4032300803201552s5a3e9aebr9850b46e5829d484@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3280177A-4935-40EF-83AC-2E86DA7D3764@Sun.COM>
	 <E390C0DE-645C-4737-9C80-0D9C5AA63A18@gbiv.com>
	 <3d4032300803291051l4118d3c1gcc0086f6499de747@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-F48TPUM08F9yfFEWhy8N"
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:05:17 +0100
Message-Id: <1206875117.6189.82.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--=-F48TPUM08F9yfFEWhy8N
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 13:51 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:

<snip>

> 3) I would be glad to ask the SFLC to get involved.  But be aware that
> the request would be to have them draft language which indicates
> exactly how one incorporates Works licensed under Apache License,
> Version 2.0 into a code base that is licensed subject to the terms of
> either the GNU General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the
> Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL").

involving the SFLC would be a good move

i do not think that we need to presuppose that they will judge that
AL2.0'd code can be reasonably incorporated into a GPL2.0'd codebase. we
should therefore ask them to draft guidance on the subject covering when
and whether it is possible, and (if or when possible) the right way to
do it.

AIUI the FSF is of the opinion that AL2.0 cannot be incorporated into a
work licensed under the GPL. it would be courteous to inform them were
we to take this to the SFLC.

- robert

--=-F48TPUM08F9yfFEWhy8N
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH73Ptl6Otx30NTe0RAtL4AJ9s6CP6/Pp0yeevL6jQg+5vooN5lwCeJd99
fcPNrQlVebZLrADJPsWK+sE=
=ygph
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-F48TPUM08F9yfFEWhy8N--