Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Larry, you are welcome. However, the other link you forwarded [1] has a section named Can I write proprietary code that links to a shared library that's open source?”. It basically answers the very question you are asking - namely, that there are cases where you cannot take code written under the Apache License, combine it with code licensed under the GPL (regardless of whether the code is explicitly included or only dynamically linked via a Java JAR file) and then distribute that under a proprietary license. Furthermore, links such as this [2] by the FSF explicitly call out what their position is on how works are combined even when using dynamic linking - once bound together the whole aggregation needs to abide by the terms of the license, not just the included work. To me, the fundamental purpose of the Apache license is to allow anyone to do whatever they want with the software, including modifying it and including it in their proprietary product with no requirements to do so. If an Apache project were to directly or indirectly require software that uses a license that requires anyone to meet certain requirements in order to create and distribute their software under whatever license they choose that project would not be meeting the goals of the ASF. Ralph [1] - http://opensource.org/faq#linking-proprietary-code http://opensource.org/faq#linking-proprietary-code [2] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html On May 20, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked: My question is about whether Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 is compatible with our Apache License 2.0. I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. Larry Rosen suggested: The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: Of course. All FOSS licenses are compatible for aggregations.” Ralph Goers then responded: The fundamental problem here is that it seems that most of the rest of us disagree completely with this statement. I know I do. Yes, I am not an attorney, but I don’t need to be to express that the many conversations I have had with attorneys for the companies I have worked for and that their (possibly incorrect) opinions are the reason why we would prefer to be overly conservative. Thank you Ralph! That is EXACTLY the reason why we moved this conversation to legal-disc...@apache.org, which is a public email list that anyone can read and copy. I'm now also copying license-discuss@opensource.org and the European Legal Network ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org. I'm hoping for responses from attorneys. I'm fully prepared to ride my horse into the sunset if other attorneys tell me I'm inventing copyright law. I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys say something supportive. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:18 PM To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy snip - To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FW: [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
See below ... On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:51:10PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Forwarding /Larry -Original Message- From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM To: ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked: My question is about whether Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 is compatible with our Apache License 2.0. I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document entitled Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy that Cliff Schmidt wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document at [1]. Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2] has somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for quite a few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these topics. I am not quite sure why it was deprecated without a replacement. The old document [1] does have a replacement: at [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html The old draft was continually mis-referenced. In eventual frustration, it was deliberately replaced with only the source version of the document, i.e. not really as mangled, but discontinued yet available for history. For a long time there is a very clear statement at the old draft [1]: This document represented a *proposed* ASF policy that was very helpful in guiding the foundation for a number of years. Please refer to the official version (resolved.html)[3] that was derived from this draft and associated feedback. Mike and Larry, would you please follow-up to correct this at the other mail lists where this misguidance was propagated (see Cc). Mark Thomas has separately addressed the EPL. -David The fact that a reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3] just seems kinda weird. In that document, the EPL was included in the list of Category B: Reciprocal Licenses. As I understand it, the guidance to ASF projects was the EPL-licensed binaries could be distributed by Apache projects, but that the source should be only available by reference. It is my understanding that Apache projects do distribute EPL-licensed modules, such as the Eclipse Compiler for Java (ecj). One thing that seems sort of weird is that the release notes[4] for Apache Tomcat 7 contains a notice(*) regarding the use of ecj under the EPL. But the release notes[5] for Tomcat v8.0 does not contain the notice, even though the ecj-4.4.2.jar (Eclipse JDT Java compiler) is listed as a bundled dependency. Hope that helps. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/archive/legal/3pa rty.mdtext [2] http://apache.org/legal/ [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html [4] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt [5] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt (*) In addition, Tomcat 7.0 uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for compiling JSP pages. This means you no longer need to have the complete Java Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime Environment (JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler supported by Apache Ant. -- Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org +1.613.220.3223 (mobile) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org wrote: On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked: My question is about whether Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 is compatible with our Apache License 2.0. I couldn't find an answer onhttps:// www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document entitled Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy that Cliff Schmidt wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document at [1]. Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2] has somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for quite a few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these topics. I am not quite sure why it was deprecated without a replacement. The fact that a reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3] just seems kinda weird. ... In that document, the EPL was included in the list of Category B: Reciprocal Licenses. Shouldn't be anything to worry about here Mike - EPL 1.0 has been on the B list since Cliff's original and was migrated over happily to resolved.html. That JIRA issue ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-218 ) was because the page says 'EPL 1.0' and the OP was searching, I suspect, for 'Eclipse'. Nothing's changed EPL+policy wise from Cliff's work :) Hen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Disclosure of patents by Apache projects
Elsewhere on internal Apache member email lists we've been discussing a patent that may or may not apply to Apache software. I already quoted publicly the strongly-held opinion of one Apache member that this patent is just plain BS, IMHO. He may be right. My concern is that Apache members are not qualified to make this determination about any patent. Nor is the Apache Software Foundation resourced to do that analysis professionally for our users. However, I believe that ASF is obligated to disclose whatever patent information comes to our developers' and members' attention. This is one of the key purposes of a NOTICE file in open source software. Others disagree strongly. Here is what Roy Fielding wrote on a public Apache list on 27 Mar 2012: http://s.apache.org/B3F. I quote part of it now: It has been discussed. This idea is the moral equivalent of pointing a gun at our user while saying that it is most likely unloaded. It simply isn't done. Adobe has not asked for it to be done. The only company that has ever asked for it to be done is Sun, and we not only refused to do so -- we exited the entire Java community process because of it. So, the answer to your suggestion is well known. Sam knows that answer. He does not need to discuss it with you or anyone else because there is already a long history behind it and a board precedence. We do not notify our users that an unspecified patent might possibly be owned by some third-party based on a theoretical reading of a patent license on a specification that we don't even implement. If that third-party identifies a specific patent AND indicates that the patent might apply to our product, then we would include information about that in a README file (assuming we didn't kill the product outright). As a non-patent but practicing attorney, I don't believe I'd ever personally recommend that we kill an international Apache project outright simply because someone pointed a US patent gun at it. On the other hand, we have a NOTICE file and we owe our customers whatever the facts are. I'm looking for agreement by Apache customers to this NOTICE policy in a very antagonistic, patent-hating and unfriendly Apache community that takes such discussions personally, like religion. /Larry ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Ben Tilly quoted OSD #1 [Free Redistribution] The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. He then added this: But not all aggregations are created equal. And now some at Apache are treating Ben Tilly's added statement as important for analysis of aggregations containing FOSS software. How do unequal aggregations affect OSD #1? I'm expressly NOT speaking of derivative works.! I used the word aggregation on purpose. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:07 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; License Discuss Cc: Legal Discuss; European Legal Network Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy The first item in the Open Source Definition seems to address this. 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Therefore you would think that all open source software should be OK to distribute in an aggregation. But not all aggregations are created equal. Licenses in the GPL family distinguish between things that have simply been aggregated together, versus things that are meant to be used as part of a combined work. Therefore if you, for instance, shipped an Apache 1.1 licensed program from one source together with a GPLed library from another source that the program won't run without, then you're in violation of the GPL. So if you're aggregating open source programs that do different things and do not rely on each other, then open source software licenses should be fine. But there are some potential gotchas. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked: My question is about whether Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 is compatible with our Apache License 2.0. I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. Larry Rosen suggested: The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: Of course. All FOSS licenses are compatible for aggregations.” Ralph Goers then responded: The fundamental problem here is that it seems that most of the rest of us disagree completely with this statement. I know I do. Yes, I am not an attorney, but I don’t need to be to express that the many conversations I have had with attorneys for the companies I have worked for and that their (possibly incorrect) opinions are the reason why we would prefer to be overly conservative. Thank you Ralph! That is EXACTLY the reason why we moved this conversation to legal-disc...@apache.org, which is a public email list that anyone can read and copy. I'm now also copying license-discuss@opensource.org and the European Legal Network ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org. I'm hoping for responses from attorneys. I'm fully prepared to ride my horse into the sunset if other attorneys tell me I'm inventing copyright law. I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys say something supportive. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:18 PM To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy snip ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
To be fair, the responses that I have seen involving Apache involved independent analyses that came to the same conclusion that I did, and did not reference my comment. Furthermore my email there bounced (which is why I just took them off the CC list), so they probably did not see it. Now on to the OSD. The OSD was unfortunately not written by a lawyer, and can be parsed ambiguously in many ways. So you often have to go back to intent to figure out which way it should be parsed. My understanding is that the original version of item #1 is that third parties are not restricted from giving away or selling the software without paying royalties or any fee. The awkward wording around aggregation was added so that http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0 could be declared open source despite section 5 which only allowed it to be sold as part of an aggregation. Furthermore there is no question that Bruce Perens was aware of section 2 of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html and intended the GPL v2 to be open source. Given that, here is how I read, The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. I read it as saying that when you distribute, you are free to charge or not as you wish, and you owe no royalty or fee regardless of what you choose. However there is a distinction between AN aggregate and ANY aggregate. Some aggregates are not allowed to be distributed. Another similar hair to split is that the manner in which it is sold can matter. For example it is OK to sell it in a box, but is not necessarily OK to put the name of the author of the software on said box. (A number of open source licenses have advertising restrictions.) That said, I completely agree that it is possible to parse that section in a way that the *GPL v* family of licenses will fail. But this is not the only way in with the OSD fails to be a legal document. On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Ben Tilly quoted OSD #1 [Free Redistribution] The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. He then added this: But not all aggregations are created equal. And now some at Apache are treating Ben Tilly's added statement as important for analysis of aggregations containing FOSS software. How do unequal aggregations affect OSD #1? I'm expressly NOT speaking of derivative works.! I used the word aggregation on purpose. /Larry -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:07 PM To: Lawrence Rosen; License Discuss Cc: Legal Discuss; European Legal Network Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy The first item in the Open Source Definition seems to address this. 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Therefore you would think that all open source software should be OK to distribute in an aggregation. But not all aggregations are created equal. Licenses in the GPL family distinguish between things that have simply been aggregated together, versus things that are meant to be used as part of a combined work. Therefore if you, for instance, shipped an Apache 1.1 licensed program from one source together with a GPLed library from another source that the program won't run without, then you're in violation of the GPL. So if you're aggregating open source programs that do different things and do not rely on each other, then open source software licenses should be fine. But there are some potential gotchas. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked: My question is about whether Eclipse Public License -v 1.0 is compatible with our Apache License 2.0. I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. Larry Rosen suggested: The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: Of course. All FOSS licenses are compatible for aggregations.” Ralph Goers then responded: The fundamental problem here is that it seems that most of the rest of us disagree completely with this statement. I know I do. Yes, I am not an attorney, but I don’t need to be to express that the many conversations I have had with attorneys for the companies I have worked for and that their (possibly incorrect) opinions are the reason why we would
