You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> on 2015/05/20 23:51:10 UTC
FW: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Forwarding.... /Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM
To: ftf-legal@fsfeurope.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>> >>My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
>>> >>is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>> >>I couldn't find an answer
onhttps://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document entitled
"Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy" that Cliff Schmidt
wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document at [1].
Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2] has
somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for quite a
few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these topics. I am not
quite sure why it was deprecated without a replacement. The fact that a
reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3] just seems kinda weird.
In that document, the EPL was included in the list of "Category B:
Reciprocal Licenses". As I understand it, the guidance to ASF projects was
the EPL-licensed binaries could be distributed by Apache projects, but that
the source should be only available by reference. It is my understanding
that Apache projects do distribute EPL-licensed modules, such as the Eclipse
Compiler for Java (ecj).
One thing that seems sort of weird is that the release notes[4] for Apache
Tomcat 7 contains a notice(*) regarding the use of ecj under the EPL. But
the release notes[5] for Tomcat v8.0 does not contain the notice, even
though the "ecj-4.4.2.jar (Eclipse JDT Java compiler)" is listed as a
bundled dependency.
Hope that helps.
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/archive/legal/3pa
rty.mdtext
[2] http://apache.org/legal/
[3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
[4] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
[5] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
(*) In addition, Tomcat 7.0 uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for compiling
JSP pages. This means you no longer need to have the complete Java
Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime Environment
(JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the
binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the
compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler supported
by Apache Ant.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License
Policy
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Mike,
Thanks for confirming all is well. If you ever do spot a problem then
let us know on the dev list.
Cheers,
Mark
On 20/05/2015 23:30, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>
> Oh my! Not at all. We love the fact that Tomcat uses ecj. I just knew nothing of the history, or of the ASF notice conventions, so it looked odd. Thanks for clarifying that.
>
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223
> Original Message
> From: Mark Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 6:18 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen; mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> Subject: Re: FW: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
>
> For the record:
>
> The Tomact 7 release notes call out the switch to the ECJ compiler (from
> javac) for the default compiler for JSPs. This was a significant change
> since it meant Tomcat could run with a JRE rather than a JDK and still
> support JSPs.
>
> The Tomcat 7 release notes (deliberately) make no reference to the
> licensing of the ECJ compiler.
>
> The Tomcat 7 and Tomcat 8 LICENSE files note the ECJ is licensed under
> EPL v1 and contain a copy of that license.
>
> The Tomcat 7 and Tomcat 8 NOTICE files note that JSP compilation is
> implemented using software from Eclipse (i.e. ECJ).
>
> The Tomcat dev community is a huge fan of ECJ.
>
> If there is anything the Eclipse Foundation thinks the Tomcat dev
> community is doing wrong in terms of the LICENSE and NOTICE entries for
> ECJ do let the Tomcat dev community know at dev@tomcat.apache.org and we
> will put it right asap.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
> (with his Tomcat committer hat on)
>
> On 20/05/2015 22:51, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Forwarding.... /Larry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM
>> To: ftf-legal@fsfeurope.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
>> License Policy
>>
>> On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>>>>>> My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
>>>>>>> is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>>> I couldn't find an answer
>> onhttps://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>>
>> This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document entitled
>> "Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy" that Cliff Schmidt
>> wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document at [1].
>> Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2] has
>> somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for quite a
>> few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these topics. I am not
>> quite sure why it was deprecated without a replacement. The fact that a
>> reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3] just seems kinda weird.
>>
>> In that document, the EPL was included in the list of "Category B:
>> Reciprocal Licenses". As I understand it, the guidance to ASF projects was
>> the EPL-licensed binaries could be distributed by Apache projects, but that
>> the source should be only available by reference. It is my understanding
>> that Apache projects do distribute EPL-licensed modules, such as the Eclipse
>> Compiler for Java (ecj).
>>
>> One thing that seems sort of weird is that the release notes[4] for Apache
>> Tomcat 7 contains a notice(*) regarding the use of ecj under the EPL. But
>> the release notes[5] for Tomcat v8.0 does not contain the notice, even
>> though the "ecj-4.4.2.jar (Eclipse JDT Java compiler)" is listed as a
>> bundled dependency.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/archive/legal/3pa
>> rty.mdtext
>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/
>> [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> [4] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>> [5] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>
>> (*) In addition, Tomcat 7.0 uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for compiling
>> JSP pages. This means you no longer need to have the complete Java
>> Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime Environment
>> (JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the
>> binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the
>> compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler supported
>> by Apache Ant.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Milinkovich
>> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
>> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss@opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On May 21, 2015 12:14 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
> our other contributions and distributed software?
Your other point is well taken, and I believe you are asking whether the
EPL is equivalent to LGPL, or rather, GPL, both of which are OSI approved
licenses.
You, and I, and quite a few other members have expressed that it should be
easier for ASF software to be aggregated and distributed -with- software of
any OSI approved license, and likely others with due diligence.
I have yet to hear a single member of this foundation agree with you that
ASF software might be built -upon- reciprocally licensed software, whether
that be the contagion variety, or limited in scope to the particular
external component, without consideration as to mechanisms (linking etc).
It is an important distinction to draw, as to the hypothetical EPL issue.
Coexisting with EPL licensed software would be an admirable goal, but
hosting a project to extend an EPL component is outside of the remit of the
ASF.
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Why is it not "idle"? I wasn't aware we had a question on deck about
MPL/ALv2 aggregations.
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> This is not just an idle question: Would the authors and promoters of the
> MPL give the same answers to Apache as Mike Milinkovich gave below for the
> EPL? Are there any unique characteristics of MPL-licensed software that we
> should worry about in ASF aggregations other than what we'd need to do for
> any EPL-licensed contributions?
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
> *To:* lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
> License Policy
>
>
>
> On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
>
> Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
>
>
> Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our
> friends at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
>
>
> Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
>
> our other contributions and distributed software?
>
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
>
>
> IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
>
> essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
>
> of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
>
>
> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a
> comment on what notification *is* required.
>
>
> and (2) that
>
> anyone who modifies and redistributes ****derivative works of Eclipse software**
>
> must disclose the source code of ****those derivative works**.
>
>
> I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to
> "...disclose the source code...", it is to make that source code available
> under the Eclipse Public License.
>
> There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as providing a
> pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found.
> So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would hope
> that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where the source
> can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the relevant repository at
> eclipse.org would suffice.
>
> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
> that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
>
RE: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Normally, even if I answer such questions, I would remind
> the person asking to consult a lawyer ;-)
Gerv,
Bless you for that!! :-) I could use some legal fees in exchange for all the free legal information I'm disclosing here under the CC-BY 4.0 license.
And thank you for the great free legal advice to Apache in your reply! I happily predicted your answer.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv@mozilla.org]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:19 AM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: mitchell@mozilla.com; 'Luis Villa'
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org>.
Hi Larry,
On 24/05/15 01:46, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> This is not just an idle question: Would the authors and promoters of
> the MPL give the same answers to Apache as Mike Milinkovich gave below
> for the EPL? Are there any unique characteristics of MPL-licensed
> software that we should worry about in ASF aggregations other than what
> we'd need to do for any EPL-licensed contributions?
Normally, even if I answer such questions, I would remind the person
asking to consult a lawyer ;-)
I am not familiar with the entire context of the question, but here are
some remarks which will hopefully help.
The copyleft of the MPL 2.0 depends on the definition of Modifications
in section 1.10 of the license[0]. MPLed code and its Modifications
("Covered Software") fall under the MPL; other code does not, and is
unaffected by any of the MPL's terms. Section 3.3 says: "You may create
and distribute a Larger Work under terms of Your choice, provided that
You also comply with the requirements of this License for the Covered
Software."
So if you want to take some MPLed code and aggregate it with other code
and distribute the result, the terms of the MPL have no effect on the
licensing of that other code. You do, of course, have to follow the MPL
for the MPLed code - what that means depends on whether you are
distributing only in source form (section 3.1) or also in executable
form (section 3.2).
Our FAQ might provide further enlightenment:
https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
Gerv
[0] "'Modifications' means any of the following:
* any file in Source Code Form that results from an addition to,
deletion from, or modification of the contents of Covered Software; or
* any new file in Source Code Form that contains any Covered Software."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
This is not just an idle question: Would the authors and promoters of the
MPL give the same answers to Apache as Mike Milinkovich gave below for the
EPL? Are there any unique characteristics of MPL-licensed software that we
should worry about in ASF aggregations other than what we'd need to do for
any EPL-licensed contributions?
/Larry
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our friends
at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
our other contributions and distributed software?
I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a comment
on what notification *is* required.
and (2) that
anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to "...disclose
the source code...", it is to make that source code available under the
Eclipse Public License.
There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as providing a
pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found.
So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would hope
that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where the source
can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the relevant repository at
eclipse.org would suffice.
I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org <ma...@eclipse.org>
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, *all* FOSS software can be used in proprietary (closed source)
> programs. See Freedom 1, 2 and 5 in my earlier email. By which I mean "uses"
> and "copies" and "combinations." (Reciprocation may be necessary only for
> certain "derivative works" under Freedom 3.)
Again, it is my experience that people who explicitly chose the GPL do
so because the code can NOT be used in proprietary (closed source)
programs. See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
Note: some chose to dual license the code under a non-FOSS license to
enable inclusion in proprietary (closed source) programs.
I believe that this may be related to the disagreement as to whether
or not GPL meets your personal definition of Free software. Of course
the FSF has it's own definition of Free software, and the GPL meets
the FSF's definition of that term.
> *No exceptions are
> needed* for the EPL, unless I misunderstood Mike Milinkovich.
Mike responded to you, indicating that modifications made to code made
available under the EPL must be released under the EPL. The EPL is
certainly not a proprietary (closed source) license.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Sam Ruby and I wrote:
> In other respects, though, you are right: "Larry is effectively
> suggesting that we treat all OSI approved licenses (and at other
> times, he has included ... CC licenses in this) as category A."
Cool. I just don't believe we can do that until we get the exceptions that we need. And I believe that the exceptions that we need would also need to cover use in proprietary (closed source) programs.
Anything less will make us less suitable as a "universal donor".
Again we agree! :-)
AFAIK, *all* FOSS software can be used in proprietary (closed source) programs. See Freedom 1, 2 and 5 in my earlier email. By which I mean "uses" and "copies" and "combinations." (Reciprocation may be necessary only for certain "derivative works" under Freedom 3.)
So for *all* reciprocal and non-reciprocal FOSS licenses: *No exceptions are needed* for the EPL, unless I misunderstood Mike Milinkovich. Mozilla will perhaps say the same about the MPL. Some believe otherwise about the GPL but Jim Wright and other attorneys are trying to fix that on the GPL side.
I don't see any FOSS licensing problems for Apache or any of our downstream customers. A simple collection of notices provided by our contributors and PMCs – that anyone can read and copy into their own redistribution NOTICE files – is all it will take.
/Larry
> FOSS FREEDOM
> 1. Use FOSS software for any purpose.
> 2. Make and distribute copies.
> 3. Create and distribute derivative works.
> 4. Access and use the source code.
> 5. Combine FOSS and other software.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:07 AM
To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
<snip>
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> My read is that Larry is effectively suggesting that we treat all OSI
>> approved licenses
>> (and at other times, he has included all CC licenses in this) as category
>> A. In the
>> specific case of GPL, he appears to come to a different conclusion than
>> the one
>> that the FSF has posted on this matter:
>
> Sam, while your summary of my proposal is mostly accurate, the above isn't
> quite right. Referring back to me referring back to myself :-) in one of my
> many earlier emails on this topic:
>
> Referring back to my own list of five freedoms for FOSS software, these are
> valid without exception for EVERY OSI-approved license.
>
> 1. Use FOSS software for any purpose.
> 2. Make and distribute copies.
> 3. Create and distribute derivative works.
> 4. Access and use the source code.
> 5. Combine FOSS and other software.
>
> The words I wrote here more than 10 years ago were very carefully chosen so
> they could be individually described under copyright law without ambiguity.
> (Even RMS agreed with numbers 1 through 4, but you have long heard his
> objections to number 5!)
>
> Believe me, I have read and reread the FSF conclusions about freedom 5. I
> don't agree with them and have said so publicly.
I may have said it poorly, but we agree that you and at least one
member of the FSF disagree on the conditions under which code released
under the GPL can be combined with other software.
> But I also have
> consistently said that Apache and all other licensees of FOSS software need
> to honor the intentions of the licensors. So rather than accepting GPL
> components (with those FSF opinions) and forcing them into Apache projects,
> we need to put the burden on the GPL licensors themselves to fix that
> problem. Or as Jim Wright and others have suggested, let the lawyers come up
> with an acceptable "licensing exception" for those GPL folks that will allow
> us to aggregate their software in Apache without fear of virality.
I don't believe that the sentiment expressed by the above paragraph is
captured by your proposal:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201505.mbox/%3C1a9b01d08b4f%249cd64630%24d682d290%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
I would encourage you to update your proposal to not only include
this, and to also describe how we should handle licenses which do not
have an acceptable "licensing exception".
It is my experience that those that chose EPL or GPL did so
deliberately. In particular, the following seeking exceptions to the
following statements are not likely to get an exception that does not
restrict or prevent incorporation into proprietary programs:
* anyone who modifies and redistributes derivative works of Eclipse
software must make that source code available under the Eclipse Public
License.
* Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they
form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL,
the whole combination must also be released under the GPL—if you
can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
> As for CC licenses, that's not quite what I would say. There are some CC
> licenses that restrict or prevent commercial use. Such licenses have never
> been approved by OSI and they violate freedom 1 above. All other CC licenses
> are, in my view, wonderful for Apache software.
As near as I can tell, none of the CC licenses are approved by OSI:
http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Whether or not I missed one, we agree that there are CC licenses that
contain no requirements over and above what the Apache License,
Version 2.0 requires. We also agree that there are CC licenses that
contain requirements that would prevent us from bundling such as a
part of our distributions.
> In other respects, though, you are right: "Larry is effectively suggesting
> that we treat all OSI approved licenses (and at other times, he has included
> ... CC licenses in this) as category A."
Cool. I just don't believe we can do that until we get the exceptions
that we need. And I believe that the exceptions that we need would
also need to cover use in proprietary (closed source) programs.
Anything less will make us less suitable as a "universal donor".
> /Larry
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Jim Wright <ji...@oracle.com>.
> On May 24, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Believe me, I have read and reread the FSF conclusions about freedom 5. I don't agree with them and have said so publicly. But I also have consistently said that Apache and all other licensees of FOSS software need to honor the intentions of the licensors. So rather than accepting GPL components (with those FSF opinions) and forcing them into Apache projects, we need to put the burden on the GPL licensors themselves to fix that problem. Or as Jim Wright and others have suggested, let the lawyers come up with an acceptable "licensing exception" for those GPL folks that will allow us to aggregate their software in Apache without fear of virality.
> <snip>
BTW, I am working on the first draft of the Universal FOSS Exception now and will release it for comment by all those who’ve expressed interest shortly. (And anyone on this list who did not also see my brief presentation in Barcelona and/or my announcement on the FTF list, please drop me a note if you’d like to be included in the discussion.)
Regards,
Jim
RE: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> My read is that Larry is effectively suggesting that we treat all OSI approved licenses
> (and at other times, he has included all CC licenses in this) as category A. In the
> specific case of GPL, he appears to come to a different conclusion than the one
> that the FSF has posted on this matter:
Sam, while your summary of my proposal is mostly accurate, the above isn't quite right. Referring back to me referring back to myself :-) in one of my many earlier emails on this topic:
Referring back to my own list of five freedoms for FOSS software, these are valid without exception for EVERY OSI-approved license.
1. Use FOSS software for any purpose.
2. Make and distribute copies.
3. Create and distribute derivative works.
4. Access and use the source code.
5. Combine FOSS and other software.
The words I wrote here more than 10 years ago were very carefully chosen so they could be individually described under copyright law without ambiguity. (Even RMS agreed with numbers 1 through 4, but you have long heard his objections to number 5!)
Believe me, I have read and reread the FSF conclusions about freedom 5. I don't agree with them and have said so publicly. But I also have consistently said that Apache and all other licensees of FOSS software need to honor the intentions of the licensors. So rather than accepting GPL components (with those FSF opinions) and forcing them into Apache projects, we need to put the burden on the GPL licensors themselves to fix that problem. Or as Jim Wright and others have suggested, let the lawyers come up with an acceptable "licensing exception" for those GPL folks that will allow us to aggregate their software in Apache without fear of virality.
As for CC licenses, that's not quite what I would say. There are some CC licenses that restrict or prevent commercial use. Such licenses have never been approved by OSI and they violate freedom 1 above. All other CC licenses are, in my view, wonderful for Apache software.
In other respects, though, you are right: "Larry is effectively suggesting that we treat all OSI approved licenses (and at other times, he has included ... CC licenses in this) as category A."
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:30 AM
To: Legal Discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Dave Fisher < <ma...@comcast.net> dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> This quote:
>
>> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a
>> comment on what notification *is* required.
>
> and (2) that
>
> anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse
> software*
>
> must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
>
> Is this any changes made to EPL licensed source code, or is it viral
> like GPL?
This is changes made to EPL licensed source code.
> Isn't this derivative works question and answer the best way to
> distinguish between class A, B and X?
>
> Whatever changes to policy that may be made these should simplify a
> project's decision about incorporating other code.
>
> Something as simple as:
>
> Class A - commingle freely with AL code.
> Class B - keep source separate, link to "original", readme with
> downstream warnings about what functionality is lost.
> Class X - use only if completely unaltered. Source code is not used in
> product only libraries and binaries that are unaltered. Keep source
> only to protect from disappearance of the project in a private archive.
>
> All FOSS can be used and then the question becomes how and PMCs can
> decide if their community can accept use within the above looser guidelines.
That is a fair, rough approximation of the current policy. Rough approximations produce good answers most of the time, but occasionally produce incorrect answers.
More on that subject here:
<https://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html> https://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html
> I think this may be what Larry is driving towards, but it is hard to
> tell in the blizzard of emails and ad hominem.
My read is that Larry is effectively suggesting that we treat all OSI approved licenses (and at other times, he has included all CC licenses in this) as category A. In the specific case of GPL, he appears to come to a different conclusion than the one that the FSF has posted on this matter:
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation
On this matter, I very much like Jim's approach[1].
Applied here, Jim's approach would suggest that any discussion concerning what the correct legal interpretation of, for example, the GPL license is, and furthermore any discussion as to the effectiveness of the license in question, are simply moot. As a policy, we simply aren't going to do that. Instead, we are going to respect the wishes of the authors of the code in question.
In the case of EPL, that generally means that we will either release modifications under the terms of the EPL instead of ALv2 -- or we will chose not to make modifications. In the case of GPL, it generally means that we will release code that is intended to run in the same process under the terms of the GPL -- or chose not to bundle GPL code that is intended to run in the same process as our code. If there are special exceptions, we will evaluate those exceptions in context.
Alternately, we may approach the authors of the code to make the code in question available under a different license or with a special exception, and in the process test the boundary of assertions like those made by Mike that "We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code".
> Regards,
> Dave
- Sam Ruby
[1] <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201505.mbox/%3C9EF14C60-E30E-4152-B399-322C77D1D0AA%40jaguNET.com%3E> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201505.mbox/%3C9EF14C60-E30E-4152-B399-322C77D1D0AA%40jaguNET.com%3E
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 23, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Lawrence Rosen < <ma...@rosenlaw.com> lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>
>> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to
>> ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
>
>
> Mike, as always from you, wonderful!
>
>
>
> Me too! That's why I proposed an unambiguous new Apache Third Party
> License Policy. I have had no worse motives than that.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Mike Milinkovich [ <ma...@eclipse.org> mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
> To: <ma...@rosenlaw.com> lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third
> Party License Policy
>
>
>
> On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that
> other
>
> Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
>
>
> Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our
> friends at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
>
>
> Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without
> infecting
>
> our other contributions and distributed software?
>
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
>
>
> IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that
> aren't
>
> essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform
> people
>
> of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
>
>
> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a
> comment on what notification *is* required.
>
>
> and (2) that
>
> anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse
> software*
>
> must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
>
>
> I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to
> "...disclose the source code...", it is to make that source code
> available under the Eclipse Public License.
>
> There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as
> providing a pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found.
> So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would
> hope that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where
> the source can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the
> relevant repository at eclipse.org would suffice.
>
> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to
> ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> <ma...@eclipse.org> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> This quote:
>
>> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a
>> comment on what notification *is* required.
>
> and (2) that
>
> anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
>
> must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
>
> Is this any changes made to EPL licensed source code, or is it viral like
> GPL?
This is changes made to EPL licensed source code.
> Isn't this derivative works question and answer the best way to distinguish
> between class A, B and X?
>
> Whatever changes to policy that may be made these should simplify a
> project's decision about incorporating other code.
>
> Something as simple as:
>
> Class A - commingle freely with AL code.
> Class B - keep source separate, link to "original", readme with downstream
> warnings about what functionality is lost.
> Class X - use only if completely unaltered. Source code is not used in
> product only libraries and binaries that are unaltered. Keep source only to
> protect from disappearance of the project in a private archive.
>
> All FOSS can be used and then the question becomes how and PMCs can decide
> if their community can accept use within the above looser guidelines.
That is a fair, rough approximation of the current policy. Rough
approximations produce good answers most of the time, but occasionally
produce incorrect answers.
More on that subject here:
https://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html
> I think this may be what Larry is driving towards, but it is hard to tell in
> the blizzard of emails and ad hominem.
My read is that Larry is effectively suggesting that we treat all OSI
approved licenses (and at other times, he has included all CC licenses
in this) as category A. In the specific case of GPL, he appears to
come to a different conclusion than the one that the FSF has posted on
this matter:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation
On this matter, I very much like Jim's approach[1].
Applied here, Jim's approach would suggest that any discussion
concerning what the correct legal interpretation of, for example, the
GPL license is, and furthermore any discussion as to the effectiveness
of the license in question, are simply moot. As a policy, we simply
aren't going to do that. Instead, we are going to respect the wishes
of the authors of the code in question.
In the case of EPL, that generally means that we will either release
modifications under the terms of the EPL instead of ALv2 -- or we will
chose not to make modifications. In the case of GPL, it generally
means that we will release code that is intended to run in the same
process under the terms of the GPL -- or chose not to bundle GPL code
that is intended to run in the same process as our code. If there are
special exceptions, we will evaluate those exceptions in context.
Alternately, we may approach the authors of the code to make the code
in question available under a different license or with a special
exception, and in the process test the boundary of assertions like
those made by Mike that "We certainly want to do whatever is necessary
to ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code".
> Regards,
> Dave
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201505.mbox/%3C9EF14C60-E30E-4152-B399-322C77D1D0AA%40jaguNET.com%3E
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 23, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>
>> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
>> that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
>
>
> Mike, as always from you, wonderful!
>
>
>
> Me too! That's why I proposed an unambiguous new Apache Third Party License
> Policy. I have had no worse motives than that.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
> License Policy
>
>
>
> On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
>
> Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
>
>
> Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our friends
> at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
>
>
> Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
>
> our other contributions and distributed software?
>
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
>
>
> IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
>
> essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
>
> of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
>
>
> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a comment
> on what notification *is* required.
>
>
> and (2) that
>
> anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
>
> must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
>
>
> I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to "...disclose
> the source code...", it is to make that source code available under the
> Eclipse Public License.
>
> There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as providing a
> pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found.
> So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would hope
> that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where the source
> can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the relevant repository at
> eclipse.org would suffice.
>
> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
> that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
This quote:
> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a comment on what notification *is* required.
>
>
>
> and (2) that
> anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
> must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
Is this any changes made to EPL licensed source code, or is it viral like GPL?
Isn't this derivative works question and answer the best way to distinguish between class A, B and X?
Whatever changes to policy that may be made these should simplify a project's decision about incorporating other code.
Something as simple as:
Class A - commingle freely with AL code.
Class B - keep source separate, link to "original", readme with downstream warnings about what functionality is lost.
Class X - use only if completely unaltered. Source code is not used in product only libraries and binaries that are unaltered. Keep source only to protect from disappearance of the project in a private archive.
All FOSS can be used and then the question becomes how and PMCs can decide if their community can accept use within the above looser guidelines.
I think this may be what Larry is driving towards, but it is hard to tell in the blizzard of emails and ad hominem.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 23, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> > I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
>
> Mike, as always from you, wonderful!
>
> Me too! That's why I proposed an unambiguous new Apache Third Party License Policy. I have had no worse motives than that.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
>
> On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
> Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
>
> Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our friends at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
>
>
> Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
> our other contributions and distributed software?
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
>
>
> IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
> essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
> of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
>
> I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a comment on what notification *is* required.
>
>
> and (2) that
> anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
> must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
>
> I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to "...disclose the source code...", it is to make that source code available under the Eclipse Public License.
>
> There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as providing a pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found. So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would hope that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where the source can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the relevant repository at eclipse.org would suffice.
>
> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
RE: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
Mike, as always from you, wonderful!
Me too! That's why I proposed an unambiguous new Apache Third Party License
Policy. I have had no worse motives than that.
/Larry
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:23 PM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Mark Thomas'; legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
On 21/05/2015 1:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
Of course. We love all adopters of Eclipse projects....just like our friends
at Apache love it when we use their projects. Please use more!
Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
our other contributions and distributed software?
I have no idea what you mean by "infect". The EPL is not a "viral" license.
IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file;
I think that is an Apache rule, not an Eclipse rule. See below for a comment
on what notification *is* required.
and (2) that
anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
I would phrase that differently. The requirement is not just to "...disclose
the source code...", it is to make that source code available under the
Eclipse Public License.
There are additional requirements for the ASF as well, such as providing a
pointer to where the source code for the distributed EPL code can be found.
So in the case of Tomcat distributing the EPL-licensed ecj, I would hope
that somewhere in the documentation there is a pointer to where the source
can be found. (I have not checked.) A pointer to the relevant repository at
eclipse.org would suffice.
I hope that helps. We certainly want to do whatever is necessary to ensure
that the ASF feels comfortable using EPL-licensed code.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org <ma...@eclipse.org>
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
RE: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> We love the fact that Tomcat uses ecj. I just knew nothing of the
> history, or of the ASF notice conventions, so it looked odd.
> Thanks for clarifying that.
Thanks very much Mike and Mark. I'm pleased that these have turned out to be
trivial to solve. Aggregating FOSS software *should* be trivial!
Asking Mike Milinkovich what he meant above: Do you also love that other
Apache projects use other Eclipse software in our aggregations?
Can our projects freely aggregate with Eclipse software without infecting
our other contributions and distributed software?
IIUC, the only important things your Eclipse license require that aren't
essentially the same in our Apache License 2.0 are (1) that we inform people
of this incorporation of your software in our NOTICE file; and (2) that
anyone who modifies and redistributes *derivative works of Eclipse software*
must disclose the source code of *those derivative works*.
Do I misunderstand your rules?
/Larry
P.S. Whether Apache projects decide for technical or other reasons to
actually include Eclipse software in their aggregations is NOT RELEVANT to
my questions. Please treat this as a one-time hypothetical.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Mark Thomas; legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Oh my! Not at all. We love the fact that Tomcat uses ecj. I just knew
nothing of the history, or of the ASF notice conventions, so it looked odd.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
Original Message
From: Mark Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 6:18 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen; mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
Subject: Re: FW: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
For the record:
The Tomact 7 release notes call out the switch to the ECJ compiler (from
javac) for the default compiler for JSPs. This was a significant change
since it meant Tomcat could run with a JRE rather than a JDK and still
support JSPs.
The Tomcat 7 release notes (deliberately) make no reference to the licensing
of the ECJ compiler.
The Tomcat 7 and Tomcat 8 LICENSE files note the ECJ is licensed under EPL
v1 and contain a copy of that license.
The Tomcat 7 and Tomcat 8 NOTICE files note that JSP compilation is
implemented using software from Eclipse (i.e. ECJ).
The Tomcat dev community is a huge fan of ECJ.
If there is anything the Eclipse Foundation thinks the Tomcat dev community
is doing wrong in terms of the LICENSE and NOTICE entries for ECJ do let the
Tomcat dev community know at dev@tomcat.apache.org and we will put it right
asap.
Cheers,
Mark
(with his Tomcat committer hat on)
On 20/05/2015 22:51, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Forwarding.... /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM
> To: ftf-legal@fsfeurope.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third
> Party License Policy
>
> On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>>>>> My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
>>>>>> is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>> I couldn't find an answer
> onhttps://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>
> This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document
> entitled "Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy" that
> Cliff Schmidt wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document
at [1].
> Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2]
> has somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for
> quite a few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these
> topics. I am not quite sure why it was deprecated without a
> replacement. The fact that a reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3]
just seems kinda weird.
>
> In that document, the EPL was included in the list of "Category B:
> Reciprocal Licenses". As I understand it, the guidance to ASF projects
> was the EPL-licensed binaries could be distributed by Apache projects,
> but that the source should be only available by reference. It is my
> understanding that Apache projects do distribute EPL-licensed modules,
> such as the Eclipse Compiler for Java (ecj).
>
> One thing that seems sort of weird is that the release notes[4] for
> Apache Tomcat 7 contains a notice(*) regarding the use of ecj under
> the EPL. But the release notes[5] for Tomcat v8.0 does not contain the
> notice, even though the "ecj-4.4.2.jar (Eclipse JDT Java compiler)" is
> listed as a bundled dependency.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> [1]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/archive/leg
> al/3pa
> rty.mdtext
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/
> [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [4] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> [5] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
> (*) In addition, Tomcat 7.0 uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for
> compiling JSP pages. This means you no longer need to have the
> complete Java Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime
> Environment
> (JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the
> binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the
> compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler
> supported by Apache Ant.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discus
> s
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: FW: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
License Policy
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
For the record:
The Tomact 7 release notes call out the switch to the ECJ compiler (from
javac) for the default compiler for JSPs. This was a significant change
since it meant Tomcat could run with a JRE rather than a JDK and still
support JSPs.
The Tomcat 7 release notes (deliberately) make no reference to the
licensing of the ECJ compiler.
The Tomcat 7 and Tomcat 8 LICENSE files note the ECJ is licensed under
EPL v1 and contain a copy of that license.
The Tomcat 7 and Tomcat 8 NOTICE files note that JSP compilation is
implemented using software from Eclipse (i.e. ECJ).
The Tomcat dev community is a huge fan of ECJ.
If there is anything the Eclipse Foundation thinks the Tomcat dev
community is doing wrong in terms of the LICENSE and NOTICE entries for
ECJ do let the Tomcat dev community know at dev@tomcat.apache.org and we
will put it right asap.
Cheers,
Mark
(with his Tomcat committer hat on)
On 20/05/2015 22:51, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Forwarding.... /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM
> To: ftf-legal@fsfeurope.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
> License Policy
>
> On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>>>>> My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
>>>>>> is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>>>>> I couldn't find an answer
> onhttps://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>
> This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document entitled
> "Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy" that Cliff Schmidt
> wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document at [1].
> Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2] has
> somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for quite a
> few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these topics. I am not
> quite sure why it was deprecated without a replacement. The fact that a
> reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3] just seems kinda weird.
>
> In that document, the EPL was included in the list of "Category B:
> Reciprocal Licenses". As I understand it, the guidance to ASF projects was
> the EPL-licensed binaries could be distributed by Apache projects, but that
> the source should be only available by reference. It is my understanding
> that Apache projects do distribute EPL-licensed modules, such as the Eclipse
> Compiler for Java (ecj).
>
> One thing that seems sort of weird is that the release notes[4] for Apache
> Tomcat 7 contains a notice(*) regarding the use of ecj under the EPL. But
> the release notes[5] for Tomcat v8.0 does not contain the notice, even
> though the "ecj-4.4.2.jar (Eclipse JDT Java compiler)" is listed as a
> bundled dependency.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> [1]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/archive/legal/3pa
> rty.mdtext
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/
> [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [4] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> [5] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
> (*) In addition, Tomcat 7.0 uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for compiling
> JSP pages. This means you no longer need to have the complete Java
> Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime Environment
> (JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the
> binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the
> compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler supported
> by Apache Ant.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: FW: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
See below ...
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:51:10PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Forwarding.... /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:41 PM
> To: ftf-legal@fsfeurope.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Proposal: Apache Third Party
> License Policy
>
> On 20/05/2015 4:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
> >>> >>My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
> >>> >>is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
> >>> >>I couldn't find an answer
> >>> >>on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>
> This was at addressed in the now apparently defunct ASF document entitled
> "Drafted (and out of date) Third-Party Licensing Policy" that Cliff Schmidt
> wrote years ago. You can still find the text of the document at [1].
> Unfortunately the version that is linked from the Apache Legal page[2] has
> somehow been mangled. As far as I know, that document was used for quite a
> few years as the main guidance for Apache projects on these topics. I am not
> quite sure why it was deprecated without a replacement.
The old document [1] does have a replacement:
at [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
The old draft was continually mis-referenced.
In eventual frustration, it was deliberately replaced with
only the source version of the document, i.e. not really
as "mangled", but discontinued yet available for history.
For a long time there is a very clear statement at the old draft [1]:
"This document represented a *proposed* ASF policy that was very
helpful in guiding the foundation for a number of years.
Please refer to the official version (resolved.html)[3]
that was derived from this draft and associated feedback.
"
Mike and Larry, would you please follow-up to correct this at the
other mail lists where this misguidance was propagated (see Cc).
Mark Thomas has separately addressed the EPL.
-David
> The fact that a
> reference to the EPL wasn't migrated to [3] just seems kinda weird.
>
> In that document, the EPL was included in the list of "Category B:
> Reciprocal Licenses". As I understand it, the guidance to ASF projects was
> the EPL-licensed binaries could be distributed by Apache projects, but that
> the source should be only available by reference. It is my understanding
> that Apache projects do distribute EPL-licensed modules, such as the Eclipse
> Compiler for Java (ecj).
>
> One thing that seems sort of weird is that the release notes[4] for Apache
> Tomcat 7 contains a notice(*) regarding the use of ecj under the EPL. But
> the release notes[5] for Tomcat v8.0 does not contain the notice, even
> though the "ecj-4.4.2.jar (Eclipse JDT Java compiler)" is listed as a
> bundled dependency.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> [1]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/archive/legal/3pa
> rty.mdtext
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/
> [3] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [4] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> [5] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.0-doc/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
> (*) In addition, Tomcat 7.0 uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for compiling
> JSP pages. This means you no longer need to have the complete Java
> Development Kit (JDK) to run Tomcat, but a Java Runtime Environment
> (JRE) is sufficient. The Eclipse JDT Java compiler is bundled with the
> binary Tomcat distributions. Tomcat can also be configured to use the
> compiler from the JDK to compile JSPs, or any other Java compiler supported
> by Apache Ant.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org
> +1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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