You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org> on 2007/03/10 17:05:55 UTC
Fwd: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers are
very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there was
a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL frameworks
not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody please clarify
whether this is true?
Thanks
Andrus
[1] http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3834911
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>
> Date: March 10, 2007 5:49:40 PM GMT+02:00
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
> Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>
> Just saw there's still some discussion about JPF licensing on
> javalobby:
> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?threadID=91097
>
> could someone(who knows the licensing details) please answer the
> "dual license question"?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
So as a practical matter I guess I can recommend the JPF project
programmers to either
* use dual licensing (but then I don't see any good examples of other
open source projects following such pattern) or
* switch to another license that would satisfy both (L)GPL and Apache
downstream users. If I understand correctly, a revised BSD license
[1], [2] satisfies this requirement.
Thanks
Andrus
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers
> are very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>
> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there
> was a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL
> frameworks not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody
> please clarify whether this is true?
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
>
> [1] http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3834911
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>
>> Date: March 10, 2007 5:49:40 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>> Subject: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
>> Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>>
>> Just saw there's still some discussion about JPF licensing on
>> javalobby:
>> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?threadID=91097
>>
>> could someone(who knows the licensing details) please answer the
>> "dual license question"?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
(oops, just used the wrong 'From', so the other copy of this message
sits in the moderation queue)
So as a practical matter I can recommend the JPF project programmers to
* either use dual licensing. But then I can't give them any good
examples of other open source projects following this path, so they
may be reluctant to go with it;
* or switch to another license that would satisfy both (L)GPL and
Apache downstream users. If I understand correctly, a revised BSD
license [1], [2] satisfies this requirement, so it looks like the
best bet.
Thanks
Andrus
On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers
> are very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>
> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there
> was a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL
> frameworks not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody
> please clarify whether this is true?
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
>
> [1] http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3834911
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>
>> Date: March 10, 2007 5:49:40 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>> Subject: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
>> Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>>
>> Just saw there's still some discussion about JPF licensing on
>> javalobby:
>> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?threadID=91097
>>
>> could someone(who knows the licensing details) please answer the
>> "dual license question"?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Ahmed.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
The FSF contends that the Apache License v2.0 is incompatible with
the GPL and LGPL.
There are a whole bunch of licenses that should be both AL and LGPL
friendly...
geir
On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers
> are very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>
> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there
> was a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL
> frameworks not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody
> please clarify whether this is true?
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
>
> [1] http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3834911
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>
>> Date: March 10, 2007 5:49:40 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>> Subject: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
>> Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>>
>> Just saw there's still some discussion about JPF licensing on
>> javalobby:
>> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?threadID=91097
>>
>> could someone(who knows the licensing details) please answer the
>> "dual license question"?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Ahmed.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 3/12/07, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The reasoning is wrong. After discussion with the FSF, the ASF were
> > happy that depending on LGPL jars did not invoke any form of
> > reciprocalness, so there was no license issue to stop us using LGPL
> > code and/or distributing it.
>
> That doesn't match my recollection at all: IIRC, it was that the FSF
> was not willing to issue any clarifications regarding LGPL and Java.
> Do you have a pointer to this discussion? -- justin
My recollection of what Cliff reported back from his conversations with them.
When I say 'the ASF' above, I mean 'the Legal VP'. The bit you're
referring to is the set of conversations before then (I think).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 3/11/07, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> The reasoning is wrong. After discussion with the FSF, the ASF were
> happy that depending on LGPL jars did not invoke any form of
> reciprocalness, so there was no license issue to stop us using LGPL
> code and/or distributing it.
That doesn't match my recollection at all: IIRC, it was that the FSF
was not willing to issue any clarifications regarding LGPL and Java.
Do you have a pointer to this discussion? -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>> One thing Hen was dead on about - if YOU have the copyright. You must
>> be the copyright owner to grant a new license that the copyright holder
>> didn't initially grant.
>
> Dumb question - is there any difference between copyright owner and
> holder? Just making sure.
Nope, there's no difference. If the law allows you to assign copyright
and contractually you've done so, the new copyright holder IS the
copyright owner. Under almost any copyright law, assignment is xfer
of ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 3/12/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > The reasoning is wrong. After discussion with the FSF, the ASF were
> > happy that depending on LGPL jars did not invoke any form of
> > reciprocalness, so there was no license issue to stop us using LGPL
> > code and/or distributing it.
>
> What reasoning was that?
The email that Andrus pointed to. ie) The premise is right, that we
don't ship LGPL, but the reasoning is wrong, that it's because we
can't relicense it. We're happy to ship code that we can't relicense
for many licenses (as you say below).
> The ASF distributes ASF licensed code, or code combined with code who's
> terms are less restrictive than the ASF license.
>
> In the few places that is simply not possible, or where several possible
> options exist for the user, some of our configure programs allow our code
> to link against more restrictively licensed code. But such code never
> occurs in our tarballs. If is does, -that- is an issue.
>
> > Policy comes into effect in terms of what we think our users expect.
> > Do they expect to download something from us and have a GPL jar
> > sitting in there? Definitely not. I imagine there would be an uproar
> > if someone discovered that their assumption that something was Apache
> > licensed was that hugely incorrect. Take a look at the HTTP Server
> > license btw. Our flagship product is not licensed under AL 2.0, but is
> > a combination of licenses, so this is an iceberg that people don't
> > usually see the depths of.
>
> And which code in httpd (/apr) is more restrictive than the ASL?
That would be a legal question and I am not qualified to answer it ;)
It's all cool - I was pointing out that the stuff we release is not AL
2.0 but AL 2.0 plus other licenses that we don't expect the customer
to be concerned about the details of. Thus I follow with:
> > We know that people aren't going to throw a hissy fit if they discover
> > that the product they downloaded from us also contains MIT, BSD, ASL
> > 1.1 or other AL 2.0 licences. Least it's a fair bet. What's tricky is
> > to decide what they'll think when they discover
>
> ... that the code's effective license is more restrictive than the ASL.
> There's no other yardstick.
As we get closer to the grey lines then I presume it gets more legally
opinionated. Cliff's 3rd party draft is in effect saying that CPL,
CDDL, MPL, and various others are not more restrictive (or not
substantially more restrictive?) than the AL 2.0 when in their binary
form. Some customers may disagree with that.
> > So the reason is not because of relicensing but because of what a user
> > would expect of us. Relicensing is a copyright issue afaik - if you
> > have the copyright you can relicense, if you don't you can't; in our
> > case we have a software grant that defines a superclass of licence
> > within which we can relicense.
>
> No - you entirely confused me, and I thought I finally got a handle on
> this.
Sorry, I tangented. That was off-topic for Andrus' question.
1) Linked to email saying it was relicensing was wrong.
2) Relicensing btw is a copyright issue, you can do it if you have it
(or permission from the copyright holder)
3) Btw, our software grant gives us permission to relicense within the
constraints it defines.
4) My lips are moving as I think about this - you've got as good a
handle as I have :)
> If the author, Andrus, wants to license their library under the
> user's choice of ASL or LGPL they may do so. The user who chooses the
> ASL terms is subject to purely the ASL, the user who choose the LGPL
> terms is bound solely to those terms.
Yep. Sorry, I wasn't trying to say anything about that in the above.
Dual-licenses are going to be a pain in the arse as things get more
transitive I think - you can't point at file X and say 'It's licensed
under Y'. Instead you have to look for a license file that goes with
file X. I don't know what happens if there is no license file - does
one have to distrust it as unknown or does one get to pick and choose.
Good luck Maven repository - files having different licenses based on
the path you took to get to that file is going to be lots of fun.
> As a practical matter, they could add or remove terms to have an almost-
> ASL, while they can only grant exceptions, and not impose new terms and
> still be LGPL.
If someone is dead-set on dual-licensing; MPL/GPL/LGPL would seem the
way to go simply because Mozilla are doing that. We're happy to use it
under the MPL license, others like the GPL license and I guess the
LGPL license is there for prettiness :)
> One thing Hen was dead on about - if YOU have the copyright. You must
> be the copyright owner to grant a new license that the copyright holder
> didn't initially grant.
Dumb question - is there any difference between copyright owner and
holder? Just making sure.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> The reasoning is wrong. After discussion with the FSF, the ASF were
> happy that depending on LGPL jars did not invoke any form of
> reciprocalness, so there was no license issue to stop us using LGPL
> code and/or distributing it.
What reasoning was that?
The ASF distributes ASF licensed code, or code combined with code who's
terms are less restrictive than the ASF license.
In the few places that is simply not possible, or where several possible
options exist for the user, some of our configure programs allow our code
to link against more restrictively licensed code. But such code never
occurs in our tarballs. If is does, -that- is an issue.
> Policy comes into effect in terms of what we think our users expect.
> Do they expect to download something from us and have a GPL jar
> sitting in there? Definitely not. I imagine there would be an uproar
> if someone discovered that their assumption that something was Apache
> licensed was that hugely incorrect. Take a look at the HTTP Server
> license btw. Our flagship product is not licensed under AL 2.0, but is
> a combination of licenses, so this is an iceberg that people don't
> usually see the depths of.
And which code in httpd (/apr) is more restrictive than the ASL?
> We know that people aren't going to throw a hissy fit if they discover
> that the product they downloaded from us also contains MIT, BSD, ASL
> 1.1 or other AL 2.0 licences. Least it's a fair bet. What's tricky is
> to decide what they'll think when they discover
... that the code's effective license is more restrictive than the ASL.
There's no other yardstick.
> So the reason is not because of relicensing but because of what a user
> would expect of us. Relicensing is a copyright issue afaik - if you
> have the copyright you can relicense, if you don't you can't; in our
> case we have a software grant that defines a superclass of licence
> within which we can relicense.
No - you entirely confused me, and I thought I finally got a handle on
this. If the author, Andrus, wants to license their library under the
user's choice of ASL or LGPL they may do so. The user who chooses the
ASL terms is subject to purely the ASL, the user who choose the LGPL
terms is bound solely to those terms.
As a practical matter, they could add or remove terms to have an almost-
ASL, while they can only grant exceptions, and not impose new terms and
still be LGPL.
One thing Hen was dead on about - if YOU have the copyright. You must
be the copyright owner to grant a new license that the copyright holder
didn't initially grant.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 3/10/07, Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers are
> very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>
> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there was
> a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL frameworks
> not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody please clarify
> whether this is true?
The reasoning is wrong. After discussion with the FSF, the ASF were
happy that depending on LGPL jars did not invoke any form of
reciprocalness, so there was no license issue to stop us using LGPL
code and/or distributing it.
I think for GPL it was not defined as to whether compiling against GPL
in Java made your code GPL. I imagine the intent is that it would
(regardless of whether the language is right), so I'm guessing the ASF
would go with the intent (ie: we can't compile against GPL because it
would make our code GPL). We can quite happily distribute GPL however
license-wise. It's just a thing in a zip.
Policy comes into effect in terms of what we think our users expect.
Do they expect to download something from us and have a GPL jar
sitting in there? Definitely not. I imagine there would be an uproar
if someone discovered that their assumption that something was Apache
licensed was that hugely incorrect. Take a look at the HTTP Server
license btw. Our flagship product is not licensed under AL 2.0, but is
a combination of licenses, so this is an iceberg that people don't
usually see the depths of.
We know that people aren't going to throw a hissy fit if they discover
that the product they downloaded from us also contains MIT, BSD, ASL
1.1 or other AL 2.0 licences. Least it's a fair bet. What's tricky is
to decide what they'll think when they discover that there are
licences such as:
CPL
CDDL
MPL
NPL
LGPL
EPL
Artistic
Creative Commons *
etc...
Which ones are going to be a shoulder-shrug, and which ones are going
to be okay. Someone may be vehemently opposed to CPL for example, or
highly against the Netscape clause in NPL, or very against LGPL. Cliff
spent a lot of time with the various licences and drew a grey line
between them all that we're still getting a feel for:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
So the reason is not because of relicensing but because of what a user
would expect of us. Relicensing is a copyright issue afaik - if you
have the copyright you can relicense, if you don't you can't; in our
case we have a software grant that defines a superclass of licence
within which we can relicense.
Hope that helps,
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>
>> * either use dual licensing. But then I can't give them any good
>> examples of other open source projects following this path, so they
>> may be reluctant to go with it;
>
> There is at least one project i know of which uses dial licensing:
> http://woodstox.codehaus.org/FAQ#FAQ-3.1Licensing
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>> * or switch to another license that would satisfy both (L)GPL and
>> Apache downstream users. If I understand correctly, a revised BSD
>> license [1], [2] satisfies this requirement, so it looks like the best
>> bet.
Right - there is an example of the most complex sort, GPL + ASF licensing
in http://apache.webthing.com/svn/apache/apr/apr_dbd_mysql.c - because
it literally plugs ASL apr portability layer into GPL mysql client.
This is quite fine with AB (licensor of MySQL) who wrote the exception
clause to their GPL for plugging in any FLOSS into MySQL. Since some
would say this plug in layer must be ASL, and some would say it must
be GPL, Nick simply dual-licensed these connector sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr>.
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> (oops, just used the wrong 'From' ... twice... so other two copies of
> this message sits in the moderation queue)
>
>
> So as a practical matter I can recommend the JPF project programmers to
>
> * either use dual licensing. But then I can't give them any good
> examples of other open source projects following this path, so they
> may be reluctant to go with it;
There is at least one project i know of which uses dial licensing:
http://woodstox.codehaus.org/FAQ#FAQ-3.1Licensing
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
>
> * or switch to another license that would satisfy both (L)GPL and
> Apache downstream users. If I understand correctly, a revised BSD
> license [1], [2] satisfies this requirement, so it looks like the best
> bet.
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers are
>> very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
>> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>>
>> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there was
>> a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL frameworks
>> not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody please clarify
>> whether this is true?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> [1] http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3834911
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>
>>> Date: March 10, 2007 5:49:40 PM GMT+02:00
>>> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>>> Subject: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
>>> Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>>>
>>> Just saw there's still some discussion about JPF licensing on
>>> javalobby:
>>> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?threadID=91097
>>>
>>> could someone(who knows the licensing details) please answer the
>>> "dual license question"?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>> Ahmed.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
On Mar 12, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> * or switch to another license that would satisfy both (L)GPL and
> Apache downstream users. If I understand correctly, a revised BSD
> license [1], [2] satisfies this requirement, so it looks like the
> best bet.
Still fighting that Monday caffeine deficiency :-)
Here is the links to [1] and [2]:
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Andrus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
(oops, just used the wrong 'From' ... twice... so other two copies of
this message sits in the moderation queue)
So as a practical matter I can recommend the JPF project programmers to
* either use dual licensing. But then I can't give them any good
examples of other open source projects following this path, so they
may be reluctant to go with it;
* or switch to another license that would satisfy both (L)GPL and
Apache downstream users. If I understand correctly, a revised BSD
license [1], [2] satisfies this requirement, so it looks like the
best bet.
Thanks
Andrus
On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Per quoted message, there is an LGPL'd framework whose developers
> are very open to change licensing to make it both LGPL and Apache
> friendly. Any advice we can give them on dual licensing?
>
> Also we had a discussion with this project in the past, and there
> was a message [1] that I thought was simply FUD, about (L)GPL
> frameworks not being able to include Apache code. Can somebody
> please clarify whether this is true?
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
>
> [1] http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3834911
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>
>> Date: March 10, 2007 5:49:40 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>> Subject: CMr - Plug-in engine discussion on javalobby!
>> Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
>>
>> Just saw there's still some discussion about JPF licensing on
>> javalobby:
>> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?threadID=91097
>>
>> could someone(who knows the licensing details) please answer the
>> "dual license question"?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Ahmed.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org