Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 32059 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2008 17:52:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2008 17:52:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 63808 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2008 17:52:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 63601 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2008 17:52:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 63589 invoked by uid 99); 29 Mar 2008 17:52:21 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:52:21 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates 209.85.146.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.146.179] (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:51:38 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m28so985901wag.13 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:51:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=cAV6iZvZQydWuSgfDriHOjd3RmWG7tlmH9/TQdLLGuc=; b=KOiR4Aj/67rZZMYFyABoNpFFBe6yQZk2eJLYR6CaeTDxHq86kC2Ez42fkL6LMmfK9rWZ4BDUxPqhSVbiupNqykIAzDkcI1Y2KI8bUxM9EK6T+Eh7Q0TeNe2fJPuz5FY32p1Y2IcXoflM9Hr2Gi/9zXQW04G6Tv5fa/S1BZerzbk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=uMhlKGayRmgtaNisPmXaIi+y0YmVOGKSyOSROv2eRnRWhal7yJGQsRv9UB2AbBKP6MaB6saN9xkEcRDBG8peaO++8FCrhhmj1B1R09pZ0nrZWAiSOvF+X4eCuzZq3vYiRD4OrSQVXxG4uT50N6c/sHBETwz1jM9E/L1OW4PgXTg= Received: by 10.114.152.17 with SMTP id z17mr6286532wad.128.1206813110857; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.168.14 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3d4032300803291051l4118d3c1gcc0086f6499de747@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:51:50 -0400 From: "Sam Ruby" Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com To: "Roy T. Fielding" Subject: Re: Apache License 2.0 Cc: "Craig L Russell" , "Legal Discuss" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d4032300803201552s5a3e9aebr9850b46e5829d484@mail.gmail.com> <3280177A-4935-40EF-83AC-2E86DA7D3764@Sun.COM> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5c98eec6ead41d9e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > > Would it be possible to ask our SFLC buddies to write a piece that > > specifically applies to the current version of the Apache license? > > No. Craig, what is the point of this interrogation? The license is > clear, our intent is clear, and if Sun wants to act like complete > idiots in regard to how it interacts with this community then it > doesn't matter what the license says -- they'll do so anyway. So Sun > can either obey the license as intended, at no cost to itself, or it > can bloody well hope that one of the copyright owners outside Sun > doesn't get pissed off and sue them for infringement on every copy > ever downloaded from Glassfish. We certainly aren't going to help Sun > avoid the most reasonably expected condition that everyone agreed to > while participating in our projects and that every other company > (aside from old JBoss) manages to obey on their redistributions. 1) I don't know that Craig is asking on behalf of Glassfish. Craig does happen to work at Sun, but that does not imply a connection to me. 2) Glassfish did summarily remove all ASF headers from all Jasper code[1][2] in the Glassfish SVN over two years ago, which I consider a violation of the license. Sun (not Craig, other people at Sun) have been asked numerous times to restore the headers. I have been reporting on the lack of progress on this issue to the board for the last several months, and such minutes are now public. One of the responses I got was that our license conditions do not apply. Suffice it to say that I was neither convinced nor pleased by such a statement. Since then, my last several emails have not so much as even received a response. Craig, if this is something you can help with, I would appreciate it. In fact, I will copy you on my next note. 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"). - Sam Ruby [1] https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/appserv-webtier/src/java/org/apache/jasper/JasperException.java?rev=1.3&r1=1.1&r2=1.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the ASF. See for official ASF policies and documents. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org