My appologies. I was confused between ASL and AFL. I interperated the
latter to be a misnomer
referring to the first. It is currently the position of the Apache
Software Foundation that the terms of
the LGPL in the case of Java might cause section 6 of that license to
bind the ASL licensed
The AFL has the same effect with the LGPL as it does with the GPL. I
contend it is also fully compatible. All are free licenses.
The issue has nothing to do with linking.
/Larry Rosen
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Oliver
Sent:
The point of the law school exam being for anyone to be able to show a
difference in people's behavior in re GPLed code versus AFL+GPLed
code. How can the licenses be said to be incompatible if the supposed
incompatibility causes no change in anyone's behavior?
The presence of
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Richard,
Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is
incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and
wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public response.
So I think I understand the controvery
I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS,
but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to
recognize that despite the reputation of lawyers for over-complicating
matters, computer scientists seem to suffer from the same affliction. The
final
All that being said, I'd still like an answer.
-Andy
Rod Dixon wrote:
I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS,
but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Richard,
Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is
incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and
wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that
says that you must use the
On Friday, 14 March 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary.
Eben Moglen writes:
No, that's not quite right. We do have to resolve one question, which
is whether the effect of the AFL is to pass through the patent-
retaliation provision on code which is relicensed.
Larry's taught me not to paraphrase, so let's look at the actual
language:
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that
says that you must use
Hi Brian,
Thank you for taking time to reply.
The Apache Software Foundation takes a cautious stance on the matter, that
says you can't assume that all authors who release code under the LGPL
will interpret it to allow the kind of combination you are asking about.
If those authors *do* allow it,
Greg Pomerantz writes:
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in
Russ,
Sorry to have to knock that leg of the chair out from under you, but I
actually believe that the AFL license *does* apply to the portion of a
derivative work that consists of the work originally licensed under the
AFL. Eben and I agree on that. So really, there are two licenses that
the
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
Sorry to have to knock that leg of the chair out from under you,
Foo. And I was on such a roll!
That's why the term compatibility has been such a sore point for me.
The point of the law school exam being for anyone to be able to show a
difference in people's
My answer (or rather my question) is does Larry have an alter ego known as
Joe Hacker who wants to get back at people on this list making the use of
his license so complicated? ;-)
More seriously, I think the hypo adds to rather than substracts from the
confusion on this topic.
The initial
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
The initial question concerned compatibility of the AFL with the GPL. In
that respect, it is worth keeping in mind that compatibility is not a term
of legal significance in software licensing matters.
Well, perhaps not. But it is a legal matter (and not any
Rod Dixon scripsit:
You are both wrong. The designation of whether one license is incompatible
with the GPL says nothing about violation. On FSF's website, they
designate some licenses as incompatible with the GPL. The question raised
was why the AFL is included in that list.
It is whether
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Nothing in the GPL
prohibits such a contingent termination provision for a component of a
GPL-licensed derivative work.
GPL 2b is generally read to prevent any such encumbrances other than those
enumerated in the GPL itself.
--
A poetical purist named Cowan
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
[...]
Linus Torvalds learns about WhizBanger and he and his team decide to
include WhizBanger in their new release of Linux. As usual, they
release their new Linux, with full source code, under the GPL.
Bottom line: I can assure you, as the license author, that the AFL is
intended to be used for software that can be incorporated into
GPL-licensed software, and I will almost certainly so advise my clients:
I hope you will decide that you owe it to your clients to inform them
that the
BigCo brings Debian Linux into its research labs.
The name of that distribution is Debian GNU/Linux. (It is a version
of GNU/Linux.)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for patent
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Brian Behlendort wrote:
All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here
these days...
Are you afraid I'll slap you 'aside the head? Relax :-)
Let's say I'm trying to be more cognizant of my own lack of formal legal
training,
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
But but... your AFL terms persist, so I'm not really relicensing. This
new one-byte-different derivative work is *not* under an Apache license -
one who picks up that code and follows only the Apache license may find
themselves violating your AFL license. The
Answers interspersed. /Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Bjorn Reese'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Lawrence E.
So the AFL no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a AFL work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want, and people using the derived work will not be
bound by conditions of the AFL but by my terms only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 02:46 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
So the AFL no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a AFL work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want,
The trademark clause in the AFL merely states that Neither the names of
Licensor, nor the names of any contributors to the Original Work, nor
any of their trademarks or service marks, may be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this Original Work without express prior
Andy Tai scripsit:
So the AFL no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a AFL work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want, and people using the derived work will not be
bound by conditions of the AFL
Alex Russell scripsit:
So long as your license terms do not contradict the license you received the
original work under (the AFL), this is my understanding of the situation.
Well, contradict is fuzzy. It can be licensed under terms that are
completely different from the AFL's: for example, it
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
below into the AFL, stating that
You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
such work under any license terms of your choice, and
I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
work, including the requirements of this
Brian,
First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its compatibility with
the GPL:
Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B
comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and
distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL.
No
yep. /LR
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:38 AM
To: Brian Behlendorf
Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
Andy Tai wrote:
So the AFL no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a AFL work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want, and people using the derived work will not be
bound by conditions of the AFL but
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
below into the AFL, stating that
You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
such work under any license terms of your choice, and
I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
work, including the requirements of this
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses, one each to
Sorry for copying large segments; I have a feeling we're talking past each
other, and I want to try to avoid that.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its compatibility with
the GPL:
Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says W+X or W' are
under the GPL, it's really GPL to Person B plus AFL to Person A. It
appears to be Stallman's opinion, and it would be mine as well, that this
cannot be the case, as the GPL prevents
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must
be followed by Person C.
My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
W+X or W' are under the GPL, it's really GPL to Person B
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A, Person B or Person C? Keep your
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must
be followed by Person C.
My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
W+X or W'
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A,
Under
U.S. trademark law, anyone can say I've built a derivative work of
Apache without using Apache's good name, or yours, to endorse or
promote their software.
It looks like use of Apache's good name to me. If it isn't what it
looks like, I guess these words are not clear.
The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for
patent infringement, does that void his license to do things with W'?
If C sues A for patent infringement, C can no longer copy, modify or
distribute W, or W+X, or W', because his license to do those things with
W
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
SCENARIO: Several faculty members at Prestigious University have created
a marvelous new package that takes input from a keyboard and displays it
on a monitor faster than any program ever has before. They decide to
release it to the public under
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and
re-license it under any license, including licenses not containing the
Mutual Defense provision [to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
perform, distribute and/or sell copies of the Original Work and
Sorry, John, but the AFL really does allow the Original Work to be
copied or modified, and those copies and derivative works to be
distributed under any license, even (gasp!) the GPL and proprietary
licenses. The original licensor sets the terms and conditions under
which he will release his
All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here these days...
Despite these clauses being within the spirit of the GPL, they are
still additional restrictions on redistribution.
In the case of the trademark/names, one who creates a derivative work will
always have to worry that
Brian Behlendort wrote:
All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here
these days...
Are you afraid I'll slap you 'aside the head? Relax :-)
Despite these clauses being within the spirit of the GPL,
they are still additional restrictions on redistribution.
If the goal
***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and
re-license it under any license, including licenses not
containing the
I just want to confirm that I have interpreted the above
statement correctly.
Anyone can take APL licensed software as a whole and
distribute it
52 matches
Mail list logo
