Re: (Re)Licensing question
On 10 Jan 2006, at 17:22, Andrew Stevens wrote: From: Helma van der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:31:25 +0100 Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? Given that GNU [1] list the Apache licenses as GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses, I've always interpreted that to mean that you can't link to (i.e. make use of) Apache-licensed libraries (jars) in a project that you're releasing under the GPL. They don't appear to have an equivalent list for LGPL compatibility, unfortunately. I do recall that previous discussions on this list have stated that Apache-hosted projects aren't allowed to [L]GPL libraries in their CVS repositories. If I've got this all backwards, someone please let me know; I've a project of my own [2] that I would have licensed under GPL if not for the fact that I made use of libraries that were released under Apache and BSD licenses. Instead I went for LGPL on the grounds that I can find a lot of other LGPL'd projects that use the same libraries, so it looks like that's okay... I personally think you've got it upside down... You can write a piece of software distributed with a (L)GPL license and using ASL licensed software... The main problem for us (the ASF) is to incorporate software based on GPL/LGPL licenses (not the other way around). Basically, as we (ASF) don't impose any restriction on our software (it's a kind of do-whatever-you-want-with-it), if we were to include (L)GPL software we would force you (end user of Cocoon) to redistribute your project under a (L)GPL license: the ASF doesn't permit it, so that's why you won't find any reliance or use of (L)GPL software in ASL licensed projects. The other way around, is, on the other hand (and in my very personal non-lawyer idea), totally possible (Mr. Stallman still says it's not, but I don't believe he's right on this one). As your software is going to be (L)GPLed, yours is the choice of how to re-license the changes you make to OUR (cocoon's) classes: if you choose to distribute the changes you make to the Cocoon classes under the (L)GPL, then we (as the ASF) won't be able to redistribute them and you'll have to maintain your changes yourself. If you re-license your chages under the Apache Software License and we (as the ASF) are able to include them, we'll integrate them and ship them in our next release (hopefully). I know that in the past there were some issues dealing with the advertising clause in the Apache license 1.1 that Mr. Stallman didn't particularly like (and claimed were uncompatible), and now he's claiming that the version 2.0 of the Apache license is incompatible because of some patenting issue: those are subjective issues that were never tried in a court of law. Personally, not being a lawyer, I think the GNU approach (Mr. Stallman's) is over-zealous onto those issues, but, at the end-of-the- day, it's your gut-feeling that will have to tell you whether you can combine the two licenses or not. As far as my personal instinct goes, I wouldn't release anything under the (L)GPL, go straight to the ASL (or even better, BSD) and not care about it... Try to Google up ASL LGPL GPL: you'll find links to a number of blogs on this subject, especially by those who are on the licensing committee in the ASF (they might explain you in more legal terms what my gut feeling is all about!!!) :-P :-P Pier smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: (Re)Licensing question
On 1/10/06, David Crossley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This plain language FAQ is helpful: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN and follow through to the preFAQ which has a good overview, Any idea why this is stated in the pre-FAQ? quote 9. You have questions specifically about the Apache XML projects. If you have sent us mail about one of the Apache XML software projects (Xerces, FOP, Cocoon, et cetera), please use the following contact instead: URL:http://xml.apache.org/mail.html /quote I imagine they can remove Cocoon from that list? Geoff
RE: (Re)Licensing question
From: Helma van der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:31:25 +0100 Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? Given that GNU [1] list the Apache licenses as GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses, I've always interpreted that to mean that you can't link to (i.e. make use of) Apache-licensed libraries (jars) in a project that you're releasing under the GPL. They don't appear to have an equivalent list for LGPL compatibility, unfortunately. I do recall that previous discussions on this list have stated that Apache-hosted projects aren't allowed to [L]GPL libraries in their CVS repositories. If I've got this all backwards, someone please let me know; I've a project of my own [2] that I would have licensed under GPL if not for the fact that I made use of libraries that were released under Apache and BSD licenses. Instead I went for LGPL on the grounds that I can find a lot of other LGPL'd projects that use the same libraries, so it looks like that's okay... Andrew. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses [2] http://pseudoq.sourceforge.net/
Re: (Re)Licensing question
On 10 Jan 2006, at 16:31, Helma van der Linden wrote: Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? It definitely is... The ASF doesn't pose any whatsoever restriction when its code is being re-distributed by a third party (you could virtually sell the ASF sources, and noone would be able to stop you). In this particular case, the entire project you methion is GPL licensed, thus, any modifications made to it will be (as well) have to be GPLed. This will guarantee that whoever inherits any of the files from that project will have to redistribute them using the same license (in case of any modification). The problem might arise for those willing to modify code based on that project and re-publish those changes: If they submit changes to (let's say) Cocoon's sources back to the project you're mentioning. The person modifying those sources can either choose to submit them back to us (the real source) or to the project they downloaded (the distributor). In the first case, we'll accept those modifications only if we can make them our own (copyright is assigned and transfered to the ASF) and will include them (hopefully) in our next release. In the second, those changes will be in the hands of the distributor (and thus GPLed). There are two options, either the copyright of those changes is transfered to the ASF by the distributor (and then we'll follows what's described above) or they'll have to maintain those patches themselves as we're not going to include GPL licensed code in our repository... I hope this clears it a little bit... Pier smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: (Re)Licensing question
Pier Fumagalli wrote: In the second, those changes will be in the hands of the distributor (and thus GPLed). There are two options, either the copyright of those changes is transfered to the ASF by the distributor (and then we'll follows what's described above) or they'll have to maintain those patches themselves as we're not going to include GPL licensed code in our repository... So this means it could become a Cocoon fork and there's nothing we can do about it? I hope this clears it a little bit... a bit yes. ;-) Bye, Helma
Re: (Re)Licensing question
Helma van der Linden wrote: Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? According to both the FSF and the ASF legal counselors, the GPL2.0 is not compatible with the AL2.0 because of the patent termination clause of the apache license. More information can be found here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html There *IS* a way, however, to license your software as GPL and have it link to apache licensed software (or other GPL-incompatible free software licenses): you have to 'extend' the GPL by saying explicitly that only the part of the software that you own is covered by the GPL and not the entire bundle. Each part is covered by its own license and the GPL does not apply to that. As an example of such a thing see http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html NOTE: there is legal debate to whether or not such an exception would stand if tested in court, but this is true for almost anything in the legal world anyway, but if you put such a GPL extension in place both sides of the open source and free software world would be happy and won't come after you. Others might, though, (see SCO), and the GPL2.0 does *NOT* have any sort of IP protection mechanisms in place when that happens but that's a risk that you take by just writing software these days. HTH -- Stefano.
Re: (Re)Licensing question
Andrew Stevens wrote: From: Helma van der Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:31:25 +0100 Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? Given that GNU [1] list the Apache licenses as GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses, I've always interpreted that to mean that you can't link to (i.e. make use of) Apache-licensed libraries (jars) in a project that you're releasing under the GPL. They don't appear to have an equivalent list for LGPL compatibility, unfortunately. I do recall that previous discussions on this list have stated that Apache-hosted projects aren't allowed to [L]GPL libraries in their CVS repositories. If I've got this all backwards, someone please let me know; I've a project of my own [2] that I would have licensed under GPL if not for the fact that I made use of libraries that were released under Apache and BSD licenses. Instead I went for LGPL on the grounds that I can find a lot of other LGPL'd projects that use the same libraries, so it looks like that's okay... FYI, LGPL is incompatible with the Apache License as much as the GPL, so the exact same reasoning applies. -- Stefano.
Re: (Re)Licensing question
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10 Jan 2006, at 16:31, Helma van der Linden wrote: Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? It definitely is... The ASF doesn't pose any whatsoever restriction when its code is being re-distributed by a third party (you could virtually sell the ASF sources, and noone would be able to stop you). In this particular case, the entire project you methion is GPL licensed, thus, any modifications made to it will be (as well) have to be GPLed. This will guarantee that whoever inherits any of the files from that project will have to redistribute them using the same license (in case of any modification). The problem might arise for those willing to modify code based on that project and re-publish those changes: If they submit changes to (let's say) Cocoon's sources back to the project you're mentioning. The person modifying those sources can either choose to submit them back to us (the real source) or to the project they downloaded (the distributor). In the first case, we'll accept those modifications only if we can make them our own (copyright is assigned and transfered to the ASF) and will include them (hopefully) in our next release. In the second, those changes will be in the hands of the distributor (and thus GPLed). There are two options, either the copyright of those changes is transfered to the ASF by the distributor (and then we'll follows what's described above) or they'll have to maintain those patches themselves as we're not going to include GPL licensed code in our repository... I hope this clears it a little bit... Hmmm In the real world, the ASF will *NEVER* come after you if you link apache licensed material from a GPL-ed project, neither would the FSF. But the matter of fact is that the apache license has a patent bomb built into it that the GPL doesn't like because it's considered a *further restriction* and the GPL has a very well defined set of 'freedoms' that it gives you and, unfortunately, it also gives people the freedom to sue your ass over IP infringement without any side effects on the licensing part of the software. The ASF is a innovator in this space (and the FSF is going to catch up with the GPL3, hopefully) because it first introduced this you sue my friend, I screw you clause. So, if EvilCocoonCorp sues GoodCocoonCorp over IP infringement of some patent they have and that Cocoon happens to implements, then EvilCocoonCorp can no longer distribute Cocoon's code! It's not a solution to the software patent problem, but given the wild availability of our software, it creates a pretty complicated deadlock scheme (because the counter-lawsuits for illegal AL2.0 distribution would rain like in a tropical forest!) There is nothing like that in the GPLv2. Mixing the two and undergoing an IP lawsuit is going to create all sort of issues, because nowhere in the GPL there is something that says that parts of it are allowed to be licensed under some other license with more strict terms, therefore EvilCocoonCorp could claim that the GPL *shielded* them against that ASF patent bomb. It's a mess, I know, but it's better be safe than sorry in these matters (even if Europe is, so far, a place where the IP problem doesn't count that much so it's a much safer bet) -- Stefano.
Re: (Re)Licensing question
hepabolu wrote: Pier Fumagalli wrote: In the second, those changes will be in the hands of the distributor (and thus GPLed). There are two options, either the copyright of those changes is transfered to the ASF by the distributor (and then we'll follows what's described above) or they'll have to maintain those patches themselves as we're not going to include GPL licensed code in our repository... So this means it could become a Cocoon fork and there's nothing we can do about it? We can't take code that we don't own and that is licensed by some other license and relicense it under different terms. But the apache license states that *if* you contribute anything back, then this would be apache licensed if you don't say anything else. But this has very little to do with the license incompatibility problem. I hope this clears it a little bit... a bit yes. ;-) Bye, Helma -- Stefano.
Re: (Re)Licensing question
Pier Fumagalli wrote: Helma van der Linden wrote: Guys, I usually keep away from licensing issues, but this time I'd like to know if it is done correctly. I'm looking at a project that is made up of several other open source projects, cocoon is one of them, another (sub)project is licensed under BSD. This project is licensed under GPL. It doesn't say that only their part is GPL and others are licensed differently. Looks like they included the entire Cocoon source tree with licensing files for all external jars used and they also left in the ASF license headers in the various files. Is this correct? It definitely is... The ASF doesn't pose any whatsoever restriction when its code is being re-distributed by a third party (you could virtually sell the ASF sources, and noone would be able to stop you). This plain language FAQ is helpful: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN and follow through to the preFAQ which has a good overview, and of course the main page: http://www.apache.org/licenses/ It worth being familiar with the principles and aims. In this particular case, the entire project you methion is GPL licensed, thus, any modifications made to it will be (as well) have to be GPLed. This will guarantee that whoever inherits any of the files from that project will have to redistribute them using the same license (in case of any modification). The problem might arise for those willing to modify code based on that project and re-publish those changes: If they submit changes to (let's say) Cocoon's sources back to the project you're mentioning. The person modifying those sources can either choose to submit them back to us (the real source) or to the project they downloaded (the distributor). In the first case, we'll accept those modifications only if we can make them our own (copyright is assigned and transfered to the ASF) and will include them (hopefully) in our next release. Thanks for the excellent description. However, that copyright part is not correct. This point is so important that i am goingg to quote it directly: http://www.apache.org/licenses/ at second paragraph: These licenses help us achieve our goal of providing reliable and long-lived software products through collaborative open source software development. In all cases, contributors retain full rights to use their original contributions for any other purpose outside of Apache while providing the ASF and its projects the right to distribute and build upon their work within Apache. In the second, those changes will be in the hands of the distributor (and thus GPLed). There are two options, either the copyright of those changes is transfered to the ASF by the distributor (and then we'll follows what's described above) or they'll have to maintain those patches themselves as we're not going to include GPL licensed code in our repository... I hope this clears it a little bit... Pier
