On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Makoto Yui <m...@treasure-data.com> wrote:
> 2016-08-23 2:20 GMT+09:00 Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org>: >> Two of the areas that I'd like to explicitly solicit IPMC's opinion >> on are: >> >> 1. whether the process of re-licensing from LGPL to ALv2 >> was enough given the ASF's strict IP policies > > The initial release was LGPL v2.1 but I changed the project license > to APL v2 on Mar 16, 2015. > The current codebase does not have dependencies to LGPL. > > I guess there are some other projects migrated from LGPL to ALv2 > before becoming to Apache projects. > > For example, Apache OpenOffice was LGPL in the past release > before joining to Apache. > https://www.openoffice.org/license.html To make a codebase available under an additional license, you need the permission of all copyright holders. While it was overseen by Sun and Oracle, OpenOffice.org required copyright assignment -- so at the time it came to the ASF, Oracle was the sole copyright holder. That gave Oracle the ability to issue the new license unilaterally. If a codebase has multiple copyright holders, you have to track them all down individually and secure permission. If there are any people whose permission cannot be obtained, then their contributions must be excised and replaced, if possible. This has been done for several projects at the ASF, but it's not easy. Two questions present themselves regarding the relicensing of Hivemall. Who were the copyright holders at the time of relicensing? How was their permission secured? Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
