You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org> on 2012/02/17 12:40:44 UTC

MPL 2.0

Hi,

I'm acyually contributing to a project which need to be released under the MPL 2.0 . I would like to integrate it later in a project under APL 2.0 . What is the best way to do it? Do I have to add the APL 2.0 as a secondary license for the first project? Or just including the project is enough?

- benoît
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Expand your acronyms?

Benoit Chesneau wrote on Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:40:44 +0100:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm acyually contributing to a project which need to be released under the MPL 2.0 . I would like to integrate it later in a project under APL 2.0 . What is the best way to do it? Do I have to add the APL 2.0 as a secondary license for the first project? Or just including the project is enough?
> 
> - benoît
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org>.
On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:02, Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
>>>> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
>>>> 
>>>> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
>>>> 
>>>> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
>>>> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?
>>> 
>>> Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion
>>> that it start ALv2.
>>> 
>>> It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but...
>>> c'est la vie ;)
>> 
>> hehehe....
>> 
>> Right license for the job, and all that :-)
> 
> Right. And to be fair, we did not anticipate the (fairly unusual)
> situation where the original author would simultaneously want to do a
> more restrictive license (MPL) and then *later* a permissive license
> (AL). That's a little unusual.
> 
> Benoit, if you could explain the reasoning behind that unusual change,
> that might lead to better suggestions.
> 
> Thanks-
> Luis
> 

Luis,

That's not really my choice here. One of the first user and also contributor to the lib has for policy to license most of the code he will use as MPL. While I need to use it in a project under apache license 2. 

Things are still in discussion. I think it would be better to release it directiy under ALv2 or maybe a more permissive license. Will see how it goes. I'm not sure how other deals with such thing though. Generally the more permissive license is used in my work. 

Thanks for the help anyway.

- benoît
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org>.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:02, Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
>>> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
>>>
>>> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
>>>
>>> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
>>> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?
>>
>> Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion
>> that it start ALv2.
>>
>> It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but...
>> c'est la vie ;)
>
> hehehe....
>
> Right license for the job, and all that :-)

Right. And to be fair, we did not anticipate the (fairly unusual)
situation where the original author would simultaneously want to do a
more restrictive license (MPL) and then *later* a permissive license
(AL). That's a little unusual.

Benoit, if you could explain the reasoning behind that unusual change,
that might lead to better suggestions.

Thanks-
Luis

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:02, Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
>> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
>>
>> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
>>
>> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
>> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?
>
> Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion
> that it start ALv2.
>
> It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but...
> c'est la vie ;)

hehehe....

Right license for the job, and all that :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Benoit Chesneau <be...@e-engura.org>.
On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:

> Benoit,
> 
> Not a perfect article, but here's a recent piece on Apache and business.  Might help.  http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/cloudera-and-apache/
> 
> Danese
> 
> p.s. Mike Olsen didn't really have a choice of license since Hadoop was already under ALv2, but he's liking it.
> 

Thanks for the link. I transfered it as well.

- benoît


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
Benoit,

Not a perfect article, but here's a recent piece on Apache and business.
 Might help.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/cloudera-and-apache/

Danese

p.s. Mike Olsen didn't really have a choice of license since Hadoop was
already under ALv2, but he's liking it.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org>wrote:

>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
> >> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
> >>
> >> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
> >>
> >> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
> >> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?
> >
> > Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion
> > that it start ALv2.
> >
> > It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but...
> > c'est la vie ;)
> >
> > Luis
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >> -g
>
> OK thanks for your advice both.
>
>  I'm trying to see the project can't just be released under the ALv2 .
> Hope it will be OK for them.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> - benoît
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org>.
On Feb 17, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
>> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
>> 
>> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
>> 
>> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
>> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?
> 
> Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion
> that it start ALv2.
> 
> It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but...
> c'est la vie ;)
> 
> Luis
> 
>> Cheers,
>> -g

OK thanks for your advice both.

 I'm trying to see the project can't just be released under the ALv2 . Hope it will be OK for them.

Thanks again.

- benoît




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org>.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
> can simply re-release it under the ALv2.
>
> (or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)
>
> A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
> more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?

Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get at with my suggestion
that it start ALv2.

It feels odd not to recommend MPL, since I basically wrote it, but...
c'est la vie ;)

Luis

> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 13:05, Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org> wrote:
>> Hi, Benoit-
>>
>> It may be easier to start with Apache for the first project, since
>> Apache could can be integrated easily into an MPL 2.0 codebase, rather
>> than start with MPL and move it into an Apache codebase.
>>
>> That said, if for some reason you must start with MPL, the correct
>> approach would likely be to dual-license under MPL+Apache. The
>> Secondary License mechanism you are referring to is only for more
>> restrictive licenses (GPL family), not more permissive licenses.
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm acyually contributing to a project which need to be released under the MPL 2.0 . I would like to integrate it later in a project under APL 2.0 . What is the best way to do it? Do I have to add the APL 2.0 as a secondary license for the first project? Or just including the project is enough?
>>>
>>> - benoît
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Or... if Benoit is the only contributor to that MPL'd project, then he
can simply re-release it under the ALv2.

(or if it is a team, then with the agreement of all contributors)

A dual license between MPL2/ALv2 is kinda silly. Since the ALv2 is
more permissive, then why bother putting MPL2 on there?

Cheers,
-g

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 13:05, Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org> wrote:
> Hi, Benoit-
>
> It may be easier to start with Apache for the first project, since
> Apache could can be integrated easily into an MPL 2.0 codebase, rather
> than start with MPL and move it into an Apache codebase.
>
> That said, if for some reason you must start with MPL, the correct
> approach would likely be to dual-license under MPL+Apache. The
> Secondary License mechanism you are referring to is only for more
> restrictive licenses (GPL family), not more permissive licenses.
>
> Luis
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm acyually contributing to a project which need to be released under the MPL 2.0 . I would like to integrate it later in a project under APL 2.0 . What is the best way to do it? Do I have to add the APL 2.0 as a secondary license for the first project? Or just including the project is enough?
>>
>> - benoît
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: MPL 2.0

Posted by Luis Villa <lu...@tieguy.org>.
Hi, Benoit-

It may be easier to start with Apache for the first project, since
Apache could can be integrated easily into an MPL 2.0 codebase, rather
than start with MPL and move it into an Apache codebase.

That said, if for some reason you must start with MPL, the correct
approach would likely be to dual-license under MPL+Apache. The
Secondary License mechanism you are referring to is only for more
restrictive licenses (GPL family), not more permissive licenses.

Luis

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Benoit Chesneau <be...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm acyually contributing to a project which need to be released under the MPL 2.0 . I would like to integrate it later in a project under APL 2.0 . What is the best way to do it? Do I have to add the APL 2.0 as a secondary license for the first project? Or just including the project is enough?
>
> - benoît
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org