I browsed some Apache FAQs and the thing doesn't seem easy anymore, I'm not a lawyer 8-(
I think finally Contributed Plugins should also be together with JSPWiki sources on Apache servers. I guess that means contributions have to be Apache licensed, anyway. "Any code submitted to the Apache project must be compatible with the Apache License, and the act of submission must be viewed as an implicit license of the submitted code to the Apache Software Foundation. " (http://ant.apache.org/ant_task_guidelines.html) The most similar to JSPWiki Plugins seem to be Maven plugins. And they link to the committer FAQ from http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-helping.html Ant say: "Because the Gnu GPL license immediately extends to cover any larger application (or library, in the case of LGPL) into which it is incorporated, the Ant team cannot incorporate any task based upon GPL or LGPL source into the Ant codebase. You are free to submit it, but it will be politely and firmly rejected. " http://ant.apache.org/ant_task_guidelines.html See also this draft: http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html I understand contributors would have to sign Individual Contributor License Agreement. So I'd suggest you contact the apache people who helped you move JSPWiki to incubator. In the mean time I'd suggest to put this text on the Contributor Wiki page: ----- As JSPWiki is under Apache license we ask you to put your contributed plugins under Apache license, too. So other JSPWiki users can legally use your plugins together with JSPWiki. You might also consider create a project for your plugin on code.google.com, java.net or another hoster for open source project and link to it from here. ----- Greetings, Juergen Janne Jalkanen wrote: > > > This is an interesting question. I don't think we can in any way force > people to adopt some particular license (though since you cannot > relicense, I'm not sure how the different viral licenses would work - a > GPL plugin for an Apache-based program could certainly not enforce us to > obey the GPL). > > It might be a good idea to add instructions how to license your code under > the ASL to the ContributedPlugins, but we should be careful not to imply > that it's the only option. But I think it might be a good idea to > encourage people to declare at least some sort of a license. > > Could please write up something, Jürgen? > > /Janne > > On 18 Dec 2009, at 17:17, Juergen Weber wrote: > >> >> While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-545) this is different for >> Contributed Plugins. >> Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none >> contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an >> unsatisfactory state of affairs. >> >> I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at >> http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ContributedPlugins#section-ContributedPlugins-QuestionsAndTips >> >> A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would >> de >> facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and >> include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily >> take a plugin into core. >> >> Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g. >> commercial, Apache, ... >> >> Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force >> contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a >> new >> one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment >> form you have to license attachments to Apache. >> >> What do you think? >> Thanks, >> Juergen >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26844884.html >> Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26885831.html Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
