How are other 'application' (as opposed to 'library') projects coping with these requirements?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Clarifying some licensing issues for Apache developers Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:59:49 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems worthwhile to state something that probably most people are aware of, but a few recent incidents suggest is worth repeating. Followups are being directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], a list that is private to Apache committers, where legal issues are discussed. Please subscribe to that list (requires approval) before posting to it.
First off, thank you to everyone who has transitioned to the new Apache License 2.0. It is a board mandate that *all* software distributed by the Apache Software Foundation be under this new license. This has some subtle and not-so-subtle ramifications people should be aware of.
*) Only software packages created by the Apache Software Foundation may be redistributed from Apache's servers and mirrors. This means no tarballs or binaries from other authors or organizations. We realize that many ASF projects depend upon other software, and that these dependencies may make it difficult for new users to bootstrap quickly. There are solutions to that problem outside of the ASF: ibiblio, sourceforge, CPAN, etc. The board might grant exceptions to this rule - bring it to us if you'd like us to consider it.
*) Only the Apache license may apply to Apache releases. This means the *entire* release. This means you may not incorporate LGPL, GPL, MPL, SCSL, or CPL licensed software within an Apache release, because all of those licenses place requirements or restrictions that go above and beyond the requirements laid out in the Apache license. When someone downloads an Apache release and reads the Apache license, they should not be expected to root through the rest of the release looking for other licenses that might apply and might have addition requirements or restrictions; at most they should be expected to read the NOTICE text, though that is used solely for attributions to survive in derivative works. MIT licensed software *may* be incorporated into an Apache project, as may BSD licensed software, software that only requires attribution, that kind of thing. When in doubt when dealing with third-party code, bring it to the Incubator, where legal issues can be hashed out first. And be sure and re-read your Contributors License Agreement and understand that it applies specifically to you when you bring in code from the outside.
I'd like to also clarify the discussion around "license compatibility". Our claim is that the Apache license 2.0 is compatible with the GPL and LGPL, and we've also claimed it to be compatible with the MPL, the CPL, and many other licenses. "Compatibility" here means that you may legally *combine* Apache code with other code under these approved license, and redistribute the work under some license from some non-Apache location. However, the license terms of that redistribution must obey the licenses of both the Apache license and the license of the other code being combined. "Compatibility" does *not* mean that you can incorporate MPL-licensed or GPL-licensed code into your Apache project and release the combined work under the Apache license.
My apologies if this comes across as pedantic; I just wanted to level-set.
Thanks.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
