You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to bluesky-dev@incubator.apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2008/11/19 19:14:38 UTC
Bluesky licensing checklist
Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
incubator project usually is.
My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
issues? What's open, what's resolved etc?
Hopefully I can be of use,
Hen
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>.
hi, as to the FFmpeg, we consulted in leagal-discussion mailing-list, and
they told us that it can't be used under ASL. And also we got guarantee from
leagl discussion mailing list that libstdc++ is available under ASL.Thus we
decided to clean FFmpeg out and to upload the "the clean" source first
meanwhile to get a subsititute of FFmpeg.
2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
> regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
> that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
> checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
> incubator project usually is.
>
> My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
> issues?
>>>Basicly, we consult the legal issues in legal discussion mailing list
> What's open, what's resolved etc?
>
>>>don't quite understand this question, beg your pardon?
>
> Hopefully I can be of use,
>
> Hen
>
Bowen
--
Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>.
2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
> > problem with FFmpeg
>
> <snipping thread from legal-discuss@>
>
> > I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
> >>>
> > GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it
> places
> > on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
> > LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.
> >>Since no other
> > people in legal discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's
> a
> > veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
> > need advices to improve our work at apache.
>
> You've definitely understood things - my concern is to make sure that
> we've understood your use case. The question of LGPL in an Apache
> product is not an easy one. Can I see the source code to understand
> how ffmpeg is hooked in and then make sure that there is a veto on
> using ffmpeg?
>>really appriciate your help. Since we can't post the source code in
mailing list. So i'll do my best to make our website open to the outnet as
quickly as possible. Thanks
Bowen
>
>
> Also, referencing Luciano's reply, are there any other issues I can
> help with while I'm here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen
>
--
Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>.
Sorry,forget to tell the ffmpeg things.
here is the license of ffmpeg. Despite LGPL license, it also uses some
patented algorithms....
http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html
gonna apply for a new ip. thanks again.
Bowen.
2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
> > problem with FFmpeg
>
> <snipping thread from legal-discuss@>
>
> > I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
> >>>
> > GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it
> places
> > on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
> > LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.
> >>Since no other
> > people in legal discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's
> a
> > veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
> > need advices to improve our work at apache.
>
> You've definitely understood things - my concern is to make sure that
> we've understood your use case. The question of LGPL in an Apache
> product is not an easy one. Can I see the source code to understand
> how ffmpeg is hooked in and then make sure that there is a veto on
> using ffmpeg?
>
> Also, referencing Luciano's reply, are there any other issues I can
> help with while I'm here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen
>
--
Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
> problem with FFmpeg
<snipping thread from legal-discuss@>
> I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
>>>
> GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places
> on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
> LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.
>>Since no other
> people in legal discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's a
> veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
> need advices to improve our work at apache.
You've definitely understood things - my concern is to make sure that
we've understood your use case. The question of LGPL in an Apache
product is not an easy one. Can I see the source code to understand
how ffmpeg is hooked in and then make sure that there is a veto on
using ffmpeg?
Also, referencing Luciano's reply, are there any other issues I can
help with while I'm here?
Thanks,
Hen
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>.
we'v checked all the libs we use in our project and post a list on
incubating website.
>>
http://incubator.apache.org/bluesky/files/html/lib_support.html
>>
the list contains the header files which we include in our source. At first
we don't know that the related LGPL or GPL code can't be uploaded to svn
repository. Abruptly, we uploaded all the source code and obviously we got a
goooood lesson. After that we consulted the legal problems and cleaned the
code which violated ASL. We planned to place the clean version source code
to our website 202.117.16.176 and hope that someone , at Apache community,
would be willing to have a double check of our code to ensure it won't
collide with ASL.
Rencently, We were about to place the clean code on our
website@xjtu.Chinawhile a very embarrass thing happened. This ip
202.117.16.176 of our website which could be visited by outnet is now
forbidden by Network Department.So we have to apply for a new ip-_-!. Don't
how long it will cost. But i will post at mailing list as soon as we've done
everything.
Thanks.
Bowen2008/11/20 Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> Henry is trying to find out if there are any open legal issues other
> then the ones already discussed in legal-discuss.
> So, apart from FFmpeg and libstdc++, is there any other legal issues
> that still need to be investigated ?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
> > problem with FFmpeg
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > *William A. Rowe, Jr.*
> >
> > 发送至 legal-discuss
> >
> > 显示详细信息 9月25日
> >
> > 回复
> >
> >
> >
> > Samul Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >> You can use libavcodec or libavformat in your commercial program, but
> >> /any patch you make must be published/. The best way to proceed is to
> >> send your patches to the FFmpeg mailing list.
> >>
> >> here is the url of the general faq:
> http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/general.html
> >
> > # Contributions should be licensed under the LGPL 2.1, including an "or
> any
> > later version" clause, or the MIT license. GPL 2
> > including an "or any later version" clause is also acceptable, but LGPL
> is
> > preferred.
> >
> > Wow. That's fairly ambiguous.
> >
> > I don't know how this is going to pan out, but thought I should pass on
> the
> > relevant quotation.
> >
> > Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's
> possible
> > for projects to offer support to it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Samul Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >> 2008/9/25 William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> >>
> >
> >> > Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's
> >> > possible for projects to offer support to it.
> >>
> >
> > Please review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html and discuss
> with
> > the incubating project's mentors. This issue was asked and answered
> about
> > two years ago when bluesky sought incubation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
> >>>
> > GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it
> places
> > on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
> > LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.>>Since no
> other
> > people in leagl discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's
> a
> > veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
> > need advices to improve our work at apache.
> >
> > Bowen
> >
> >
> >
> > 2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> >
> >> Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
> >> regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
> >> that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
> >> checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
> >> incubator project usually is.
> >>
> >> My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
> >> issues? What's open, what's resolved etc?
> >>
> >> Hopefully I can be of use,
> >>
> >> Hen
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Henry is trying to find out if there are any open legal issues other
then the ones already discussed in legal-discuss.
So, apart from FFmpeg and libstdc++, is there any other legal issues
that still need to be investigated ?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
> problem with FFmpeg
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> *William A. Rowe, Jr.*
>
> 发送至 legal-discuss
>
> 显示详细信息 9月25日
>
> 回复
>
>
>
> Samul Kevin wrote:
>>
>> You can use libavcodec or libavformat in your commercial program, but
>> /any patch you make must be published/. The best way to proceed is to
>> send your patches to the FFmpeg mailing list.
>>
>> here is the url of the general faq:http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/general.html
>
> # Contributions should be licensed under the LGPL 2.1, including an "or any
> later version" clause, or the MIT license. GPL 2
> including an "or any later version" clause is also acceptable, but LGPL is
> preferred.
>
> Wow. That's fairly ambiguous.
>
> I don't know how this is going to pan out, but thought I should pass on the
> relevant quotation.
>
> Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's possible
> for projects to offer support to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Samul Kevin wrote:
>>
>> 2008/9/25 William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
>>
>
>> > Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's
>> > possible for projects to offer support to it.
>>
>
> Please review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html and discuss with
> the incubating project's mentors. This issue was asked and answered about
> two years ago when bluesky sought incubation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
>>>
> GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places
> on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
> LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.>>Since no other
> people in leagl discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's a
> veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
> need advices to improve our work at apache.
>
> Bowen
>
>
>
> 2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
>
>> Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
>> regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
>> that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
>> checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
>> incubator project usually is.
>>
>> My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
>> issues? What's open, what's resolved etc?
>>
>> Hopefully I can be of use,
>>
>> Hen
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Bluesky licensing checklist
Posted by Samul Kevin <lo...@gmail.com>.
the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
problem with FFmpeg
>>>>>>>>>>
*William A. Rowe, Jr.*
发送至 legal-discuss
显示详细信息 9月25日
回复
Samul Kevin wrote:
>
> You can use libavcodec or libavformat in your commercial program, but
> /any patch you make must be published/. The best way to proceed is to
> send your patches to the FFmpeg mailing list.
>
> here is the url of the general faq:http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/general.html
# Contributions should be licensed under the LGPL 2.1, including an "or any
later version" clause, or the MIT license. GPL 2
including an "or any later version" clause is also acceptable, but LGPL is
preferred.
Wow. That's fairly ambiguous.
I don't know how this is going to pan out, but thought I should pass on the
relevant quotation.
Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's possible
for projects to offer support to it.
>>>>>>>>>>
Samul Kevin wrote:
>
> 2008/9/25 William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
>
> > Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's
> > possible for projects to offer support to it.
>
Please review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html and discuss with
the incubating project's mentors. This issue was asked and answered about
two years ago when bluesky sought incubation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
>>
GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places
on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.>>Since no other
people in leagl discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's a
veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
need advices to improve our work at apache.
Bowen
2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
> regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
> that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
> checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
> incubator project usually is.
>
> My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
> issues? What's open, what's resolved etc?
>
> Hopefully I can be of use,
>
> Hen
>
--
Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU