Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Jan 10, 2016 4:26 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
>
> So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute.
[3][4]
>
> Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple
of places.
>
> For instance:
> - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
> - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this
special exception that is!

There is no modification to the license.  The files in question are
dual-licensed, either GPL or the terms of your OSS software which uses
autoconf, which in our case is AL 2.0.

> - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to
mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as
indicated in the header text?

No.  We don't ship GPL software, the applicable terms are AL 2.0 :)

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. 

It’s been discussed see [1][2][3[4]], note that is just for GPL with a specific 
exclusion not ordinary GPL licenced software.

The exclusion states:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License,
# if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that
# is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the
# same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

But if you think this needs further discussion on legal just say so and I’ll 
take it there.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://markmail.org/thread/trsh3f3ucycxlgfm
2. http://markmail.org/thread/wtbf7tb2ooysk3ok
3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.

So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4]

Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of 
places.

For instance:
- The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
- Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special 
exception that is!
- When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to mention so 
in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in 
the header text?
- Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this special 
exception as OK? [3]

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
3. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

[Ross Gardler]

Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. If there has been a 
documented decision to allow this then the legal policy docs need updating 
before we start updating any Incubator docs

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Justin Mclean<mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com>
Sent: ‎1/‎10/‎2016 2:26 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Hi,

Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.

So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4]

Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of 
places.

For instance:
- The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
- Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special 
exception that is!
- When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to mention so 
in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in 
the header text?
- Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this special 
exception as OK? [3]

Thanks,
Justin

1. 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apache.org%2flegal%2fresolved.html%23category-a=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=aSNEqx8NmabA8UolEgFlrB8ajBnoVUlAoZz0bJzJ9uE%3d
2. 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apache.org%2flegal%2fresolved.html%23category-x=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=Sot3aqmOsqydq0Q6IFOtV%2f8Az3BlNNgM910Hzo%2fCqaU%3d
3. 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apache.org%2flegal%2fresolved.html%23build-tools=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=h%2bJm9oUXBy0qT7KG2O4fXi7IfdWDe5TUtgIgGKEjw2g%3d
4. 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fissues.apache.org%2fjira%2fbrowse%2fLEGAL-58=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=Bxkp6g%2bobdHKrFboEMBnxzSdXkvp6yLg2AHwZePJ%2b%2bg%3d



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

[John D. Ament]

I'm wondering if this should be over at legal discuss
On Jan 10, 2016 19:40, "Roman Shaposhnik"  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
> >
> > So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute.
> [3][4]
> >
> > Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a
> couple of places.
> >
> > For instance:
> > - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license
> [1]
> > - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this
> special exception that is!
> > - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to
> mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as
> indicated in the header text?
> > - Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this
> special exception as OK? [3]
>
> This is very serendipitous, since I was about to send a very similar
> question
> asking whether it would be kosher for HAWQ to ship the following folder:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/master/config
>
> To make this story even more interesting: this folder has bee lifter pretty
> much verbatim from PostgreSQL release tarball. I guess it means that
> PostgreSQL community feels it is kosher to have it in an otherwise
> PostgreSQL licensed release.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
>
> So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4]
>
> Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of 
> places.
>
> For instance:
> - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
> - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special 
> exception that is!
> - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to mention so 
> in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in 
> the header text?
> - Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this 
> special exception as OK? [3]

This is very serendipitous, since I was about to send a very similar question
asking whether it would be kosher for HAWQ to ship the following folder:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/master/config

To make this story even more interesting: this folder has bee lifter pretty
much verbatim from PostgreSQL release tarball. I guess it means that
PostgreSQL community feels it is kosher to have it in an otherwise
PostgreSQL licensed release.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org