RE: Action items now or after board meeting?
>>> I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific > > > licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or > > > distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I > > > summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. > > > > The net affect of such a license would be that people who receive the > > software from us would have significantly less restrictions placed on > > what they could do with it than if they received these same bytes from > > the original source. > > This is not necessarily true. The most likely scenario is that the > exception is just made for apache, not for people using apache, that > wish to customize that part it is concerning (unless they contribute > back of course..). Exactly the kind of opposing interpretations I would rather not take responsibility for. (PS I broke my mail server today, ha ha, so I missed Sam's post) d.
Re: Action items now or after board meeting?
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:46, Sam Ruby wrote: > > MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or > > consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain > > groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any > > more, and until then the last release of the mm.mysql under LGPL is > > the only one we can use. If MySQL did contact me regarding a specific > > Apache licence I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific > > licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or > > distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I > > summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. > > The net affect of such a license would be that people who receive the > software from us would have significantly less restrictions placed on > what they could do with it than if they received these same bytes from > the original source. This is not necessarily true. The most likely scenario is that the exception is just made for apache, not for people using apache, that wish to customize that part it is concerning (unless they contribute back of course..). Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Action items now or after board meeting?
Danny Angus wrote: > >>> With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that we >>> had indeed received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs >>> to be made more clear somewhere. >> >> If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see >> no record of this on their website. If they issues a separate >> license for the ASF, then I would expect the board to have a copy >> of this and I would be very concerned about what limitations it >> might place on users of ASF software. > > I can't speak for dnsjava but the mm.mysql position is this.. > > the old mm.mysql driver is released under LGPL, when we removed this > driver last time this issue came up Mark Matthews, then > copyrightholder and licensor, contacted me and told me that as far as > he was concerned our use of this library was consistent with LGPL > (there is no compile time dependance on the copyright material, only > on the JDBC contract) and was in fact the kind of use he'd intended > to allow by choosing LGPL over GPL. It is not clear that the license he chose was consistent with his intentions. > The driver has been moved to MySQL and has become the MySQL > connector-J, who's licence as distributed publicly is GPL and so we > can't upgrade. Period. > > MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or > consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain > groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any > more, and until then the last release of the mm.mysql under LGPL is > the only one we can use. If MySQL did contact me regarding a specific > Apache licence I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific > licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or > distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I > summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. The net affect of such a license would be that people who receive the software from us would have significantly less restrictions placed on what they could do with it than if they received these same bytes from the original source. > If it would help I can fw my correspondance with Mark to the board > for the record. > > d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Action items now or after board meeting?
Sam, Noel, everyone.. > > With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that > we had indeed > > received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs to be > made more clear > > somewhere. > > If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see no > record of this on their website. If they issues a separate license for > the ASF, then I would expect the board to have a copy of this and I > would be very concerned about what limitations it might place on users > of ASF software. I can't speak for dnsjava but the mm.mysql position is this.. the old mm.mysql driver is released under LGPL, when we removed this driver last time this issue came up Mark Matthews, then copyrightholder and licensor, contacted me and told me that as far as he was concerned our use of this library was consistent with LGPL (there is no compile time dependance on the copyright material, only on the JDBC contract) and was in fact the kind of use he'd intended to allow by choosing LGPL over GPL. The driver has been moved to MySQL and has become the MySQL connector-J, who's licence as distributed publicly is GPL and so we can't upgrade. Period. MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any more, and until then the last release of the mm.mysql under LGPL is the only one we can use. If MySQL did contact me regarding a specific Apache licence I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. If it would help I can fw my correspondance with Mark to the board for the record. d.
RE: Action items now or after board meeting?
> If you believe that people would reasonably expect to find > the license in the jar file, then I would say this complies. No, I don't. As I said, there is a copy of the license in the James CVS root. The question was whether there needed to be copies co-located elsewhere in the structure where we have jar files. I thought the suggestion that the license could be embedded, hence the question. Serge has spoken with Brian Wellington, and can take care of any remaining formalities. The mm.mysql driver is purely optional, distributed only as a convenience for end users, called indirectly via JDBC, and replaced by whichever JDBC driver they want to use depending upon the intended database server, so I don't know if there is any issue with it, but Danny had been following up with MySQL. It will help when the Board ratifies its decisions if there is a document that we can point to on the site explaining to authors what licenses are acceptable, and what we need from them to be able to use and/or distribute their code in either source or binary fashion. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Action items now or after board meeting?
Noel J. Bergman wrote: We do have the ASL license in our CVS. What we don't have is a copy of it in the particular directories that contain the builds of Avalon jars that we're using. What is the specific requirement? And is it really true that if the license is embedded in the jar file, that suffices? There is no requirement for it to be visible without someone having to look in the jar? The Apache Software License paragraph 2 simply states a list of things that must be present in the distribution. If you believe that people would reasonably expect to find the license in the jar file, then I would say this complies. It might be prudent to mention this on the James website and/or in some README, as inside the jar is not necessarily the first place I would have thought to look. With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that we had indeed received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs to be made more clear somewhere. If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see no record of this on their website. If they issues a separate license for the ASF, then I would expect the board to have a copy of this and I would be very concerned about what limitations it might place on users of ASF software. -Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Action items now or after board meeting?
Sam, We do have the ASL license in our CVS. What we don't have is a copy of it in the particular directories that contain the builds of Avalon jars that we're using. What is the specific requirement? And is it really true that if the license is embedded in the jar file, that suffices? There is no requirement for it to be visible without someone having to look in the jar? With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that we had indeed received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs to be made more clear somewhere. --- Noel -Original Message- From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 9:11 To: Noel J. Bergman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Action items now or after board meeting? Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Sam, > > We've been discussing the jar licensing, and want to check: do we have an > action item TODAY, or do we wait for the board meeting to provide formal > guidance? If I am correct in presuming that you are looking over James's assets, then you have no action item from me at this point. I'm asking every Jakarta PMC member to do a review of the assets that they are involved with for license compliance. I would like to be able to report that this is complete at the next board meeting. > At the moment, I am told that we have permissions for dnsjava and mm.mysql > from their authors, as well as geo-ip from that author. The other jars are > JavaMail and JAF. Both Dnsjava and mm.mysql are licensed under GPL or LGPL. I would strongly recommend that you get the author to provide an alternate license. The author might be delighted to have us redistribute his code, but people who use ASF software might not be so appreciative of this. As to JavaMail and JAF, the license is clear: you can distribute only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs. > Dion Gillard also believes that a copy of the ASF License file needs to be > in every directory of the CVS within which is located a jar, unless the jar > has the ASL embedded in it. I agree. I note that cocoon has chosen to put the licenses in a separate directory. That works too. The layout is not the important thing, but complying with the terms of the license is. > Please advise. Thanks. :-) > > --- Noel > > P.S. Since I know that this subject is bound to annoy people, I want to get > Dion out of the firing line; people should know that he and the rest of the > Maven team were asked to do the audits. The Maven team was asked to audit themselves and the resources they provide to others. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Action items now or after board meeting?
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Sam, We've been discussing the jar licensing, and want to check: do we have an action item TODAY, or do we wait for the board meeting to provide formal guidance? If I am correct in presuming that you are looking over James's assets, then you have no action item from me at this point. I'm asking every Jakarta PMC member to do a review of the assets that they are involved with for license compliance. I would like to be able to report that this is complete at the next board meeting. At the moment, I am told that we have permissions for dnsjava and mm.mysql from their authors, as well as geo-ip from that author. The other jars are JavaMail and JAF. Both Dnsjava and mm.mysql are licensed under GPL or LGPL. I would strongly recommend that you get the author to provide an alternate license. The author might be delighted to have us redistribute his code, but people who use ASF software might not be so appreciative of this. As to JavaMail and JAF, the license is clear: you can distribute only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs. Dion Gillard also believes that a copy of the ASF License file needs to be in every directory of the CVS within which is located a jar, unless the jar has the ASL embedded in it. I agree. I note that cocoon has chosen to put the licenses in a separate directory. That works too. The layout is not the important thing, but complying with the terms of the license is. Please advise. Thanks. :-) --- Noel P.S. Since I know that this subject is bound to annoy people, I want to get Dion out of the firing line; people should know that he and the rest of the Maven team were asked to do the audits. The Maven team was asked to audit themselves and the resources they provide to others. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
