You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to torque-user@db.apache.org by peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at> on 2003/02/15 14:24:18 UTC
a licensing question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
hi all!
i've got a licensing question about torque (and i cannot find anything about
it on the projects website or the list archive):
torque itself is licensed under the apache foundation license, meaning that i
can include the libraries in a gpl'ed project. ok.
but what about the classes torque *generates*? do these fall under the afl as
well, or can i choose the license of these classes?
can anyone shed some light on this?
- --
|-
| peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Tj+GIMP39JYOy9IRAnQsAJ4vwsJqMKPc/qFPzivCffM73D1Y5wCfbuWx
drcR8JsknTLMSmgrMYXtO6Q=
=DYii
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: a licensing question
Posted by peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 12:29, Martin Poeschl wrote:
> m$ office is licensed under the m$ license .. but not your word or excel
> docs
>
> torque is licensed undter the apache license ..
>
> i don't think the generated files fall under the apache license
>
> my 0.02$
>
> martin
sounds reasonable.
dankeschön,
rick
- --
|-
| peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+UiNDIMP39JYOy9IRAutjAKD21DmcuF3EcrbhKyGIY1iHYRElgACfSwEo
rChi5bDSwrmiEncdr676XRc=
=uUXH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: OT: Re: a licensing question
Posted by peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 19 February 2003 11:17, peter riegersperger wrote:
> i'm not sure if
> we should continue this thread on the list (people might object for being
> too much off-topic)
ok, it took me just 30 minutes to break my own proposal. i have to check, but
i probably just broke my own record :)
anyway, the problem actually seems not to arrive from the apache side (what
was what i thought, and what kept me on the wrong track), but from the gpl
side.
problematic are conditions (4) and (5) of the asl 1.1 (restrictions of the use
of the word "apache"), and not (3) (the "advertising clause" or "credit
clause"), which has been revised from version 1.0 to 1.1.
because of conditions (4) and (5), a gpl'ed project may not rely on anything
licensed under the apache license.
i got it now, thanks again!
rick
- --
|-
| peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+U2SZIMP39JYOy9IRAoa9AKCC+ZORlADvcKfzZeoOflxp1aNFVgCcDlnT
vNbcV6pweA4S8C0ZAx0njYk=
=71pH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: OT: Re: a licensing question
Posted by Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au>.
Check the mail archive of general@jakarta.apache.org for the recent
discussions re the maven jar repository. Somewhere in there you will find
details of an asf mailing list dedicated to discussing licensing issues (a
search for "licensing@" should turn something up).
HTH,
Scott
--
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au
.Mac Chat/AIM: seade at mac dot com
On 19/02/2003 9:17 PM, "peter riegersperger" <ri...@subnet.at> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 18 February 2003 22:30, Kurt Schrader wrote:
>> Of course you could always do what most people do and just not care about
>> it. Or you could relicense under BSD or equivalent.
>
> i'd rather not just don't care about it, because that's what licensing is for
> after all: that you do care about.
>
> i just spent 2 hours on trying to get more clarification on this issue, but
> all i ended up with was loose strings of unresolved debates.
> (for example, the asf has the (unofficial) opinion that their license *is*
> gpl-compatible (stated
> here:http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL), while the fsf
> claims that it isn't. hmm.)
> further, i found quite some references on apache.org to projects that rely on
> apache-projects, but are still licensed under the gpl. but that might be an
> example of "just don't care".
>
> i'm afraid this will cause me some major headaches over the next time because
> i'd like to get this right once and for all (in fact, not just for this
> single project, but for my organisation in general). i'm not sure if we
> should continue this thread on the list (people might object for being too
> much off-topic), but if someone with more insight in these issues could mail
> me in private what it means when the asf says it thinks that "the asl is
> compatible with the gpl", i'd be very happy.
>
> thanks to everyone who answered,
>
> rick
>
>
> - --
> |-
> | peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
> |-
> | ein windows switcher tagebuch:
> | http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
> |-
> | subnet
> | platform for media art and experimental technologies
> |-
> | http://www.subnet.at/
> |-
> | muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
> |-
> | fon/fax +43/662/842 897
> |-
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+U1myIMP39JYOy9IRAruzAKChE3VSP1HxEP7brl8BiTlrUoD/PQCg0NRE
> FSIlLuFI98ZZDaP1EXOad2w=
> =LHQy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
>
Re: OT: Re: a licensing question
Posted by peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 22:30, Kurt Schrader wrote:
> Of course you could always do what most people do and just not care about
> it. Or you could relicense under BSD or equivalent.
i'd rather not just don't care about it, because that's what licensing is for
after all: that you do care about.
i just spent 2 hours on trying to get more clarification on this issue, but
all i ended up with was loose strings of unresolved debates.
(for example, the asf has the (unofficial) opinion that their license *is*
gpl-compatible (stated
here:http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL), while the fsf
claims that it isn't. hmm.)
further, i found quite some references on apache.org to projects that rely on
apache-projects, but are still licensed under the gpl. but that might be an
example of "just don't care".
i'm afraid this will cause me some major headaches over the next time because
i'd like to get this right once and for all (in fact, not just for this
single project, but for my organisation in general). i'm not sure if we
should continue this thread on the list (people might object for being too
much off-topic), but if someone with more insight in these issues could mail
me in private what it means when the asf says it thinks that "the asl is
compatible with the gpl", i'd be very happy.
thanks to everyone who answered,
rick
- --
|-
| peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+U1myIMP39JYOy9IRAruzAKChE3VSP1HxEP7brl8BiTlrUoD/PQCg0NRE
FSIlLuFI98ZZDaP1EXOad2w=
=LHQy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: OT: Re: a licensing question
Posted by Kurt Schrader <ks...@karmalab.org>.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, peter riegersperger wrote:
> whoa, licensing issues. always make me sea-sick.
Me too.
> so, why would this keep me from licensing my project under the gpl (with "my
> project" being my own source code?)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
If your project links to Torque then you're in violation. Stupid eh?
> for one, i could simply not redistribute torque, but tell people to download
> it themselves (that's pretty much what we do when we say people should
> download a jre).
If you need it to build then you're in violation.
> or second, i could include torque in my distribution, as long as i
> explicitely say that torque itself follows a different license scheme.
Nope, because by importing from Torque you've tied yourself to it, so it
must be GPLed as well, which it can't be because of the advertising
clause. Stupid eh?
Of course you could always do what most people do and just not care about
it. Or you could relicense under BSD or equivalent.
-Kurt
OT: Re: a licensing question
Posted by peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 17:43, Kurt Schrader wrote:
> > peter riegersperger wrote:
> > > torque itself is licensed under the apache foundation license, meaning
> > > that i can include the libraries in a gpl'ed project. ok.
>
> Just another note, GPLed projects can't include Apache licensed libraries,
> because of the advertising clause.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
whoa, licensing issues. always make me sea-sick.
i guess you refer to:
* 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
* if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the
* Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
* Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
* if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
in the apache software license.
but what about:
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
* the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
* distribution.
to me, this clearly indicates that *if* i redistribute the torque-jars, i have
to include two things in my documentation and/or my program:
1. a copy of the asl (and a note that it applies to torque).
2. a note that my project uses torque.
so, why would this keep me from licensing my project under the gpl (with "my
project" being my own source code?)
for one, i could simply not redistribute torque, but tell people to download
it themselves (that's pretty much what we do when we say people should
download a jre). or second, i could include torque in my distribution, as
long as i explicitely say that torque itself follows a different license
scheme.
are these assumptions not correct?
thanks,
rick
- --
|-
| peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+UnMGIMP39JYOy9IRAoVNAJ0WhuwCTHjk824HE91CZFe8/TorLwCghDV0
fRq8c6RbjTg5964sruO4VEE=
=0jt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: a licensing question
Posted by Kurt Schrader <ks...@karmalab.org>.
> peter riegersperger wrote:
> > torque itself is licensed under the apache foundation license, meaning
> > that i can include the libraries in a gpl'ed project. ok.
Just another note, GPLed projects can't include Apache licensed libraries,
because of the advertising clause.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
-Kurt
Re: a licensing question
Posted by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>.
m$ office is licensed under the m$ license .. but not your word or excel
docs
torque is licensed undter the apache license ..
i don't think the generated files fall under the apache license
my 0.02$
martin
peter riegersperger wrote:
> hi again!
>
> is the answer so obvious that i should hide myself for asking such a
> question?
>
> rick
>
>
>
> On Saturday 15 February 2003 14:24, peter riegersperger wrote:
>
> hi all!
>
> i've got a licensing question about torque (and i cannot find anything
> about it on the projects website or the list archive):
> torque itself is licensed under the apache foundation license, meaning
> that
> i can include the libraries in a gpl'ed project. ok.
> but what about the classes torque *generates*? do these fall under the afl
> as well, or can i choose the license of these classes?
>
> can anyone shed some light on this?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: a licensing question
Posted by peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
hi again!
is the answer so obvious that i should hide myself for asking such a question?
rick
On Saturday 15 February 2003 14:24, peter riegersperger wrote:
> hi all!
>
> i've got a licensing question about torque (and i cannot find anything
> about it on the projects website or the list archive):
> torque itself is licensed under the apache foundation license, meaning that
> i can include the libraries in a gpl'ed project. ok.
> but what about the classes torque *generates*? do these fall under the afl
> as well, or can i choose the license of these classes?
>
> can anyone shed some light on this?
- --
|-
| peter riegersperger <ri...@subnet.at>
|-
| ein windows switcher tagebuch:
| http://forum.subnet.at/viewforum.php?f=22
|-
| subnet
| platform for media art and experimental technologies
|-
| http://www.subnet.at/
|-
| muehlbacherhofweg 5 // 5020 salzburg // austria
|-
| fon/fax +43/662/842 897
|-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+UhPTIMP39JYOy9IRAnwmAJ9szxjmz0lnrcskHjVry/Bn4MY9PgCfe/mT
AOvTU8xjLsOIBiqIpOxm8MU=
=ZC55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----