You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jean-Bernard Stefani <Je...@inrialpes.fr> on 2003/09/03 17:43:54 UTC
Re: Réf. : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb ( was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Dear Brian,
I'd like to concur with what Jean-Pierre suggests (i.e. using the BSD
license as a way for Apache to make use of ObjectWeb components that may be
of interest such as JOTM or ASM) and add a couple of clarifications.
I understand the Apache requirement as 'we (ASF) only want to ship code
that meets the terms of code reuse, distribution and modification of the
ASF license, including component or library code which may have originated
outside of ASF but which is used by the code we ship'.
This requirement is not met by the LGPL since the LGPL mandates that any
modification made to the component or library code be made available under
the same LGPL license. (BTW, this does not mean that the LGPL is viral,
since it only impacts modifications to the original component code).
If this reading is correct, I think the best way forward (in order to allow
ObjectWeb components to be reused in Apache projects) is as Jean-Pierre
suggests: let us (ObjectWeb) see if we can alter the license of these
components to a license which is compatible with the Apache requirement and
would retain the mention of origin and copyright of the ObjectWeb
contributors. Like Jean-Pierre, I think the BSD license meets both
constraints so it would be an excellent choice.
We will in any case discuss the issue at our next College of Architects
meeting on Sep. 25 and we can take then the decision to release the
components of interest under an appropriate license to further Apache/OW
collaboration.
Best regards,
Jean-Bernard Stefani
INRIA, Chairman of the ObjectWeb Board
At 14:46 +0200 3/09/03, Jean-Pierre.Laisne@bull.net wrote:
>Brian,
>
>You are totally right.
>
>There is no legal issue (nor constraint from FSF) for any GPL or LGPL
>application to combine "BSD-type" license such as Apache. The derived work
>in that case is LGPL. The contrary is not possible because of the same
>reason i.e. LGPL's "viral" aspect (which is IMHO a strength for "FSF type"
>license).
>
>Like you suggest it, ObjectWeb would be ready (in conjunction with Apache
>Community) to "make a public statement" about this licensing compatibility.
>We can bring to the table our experience from ObjectWeb's code base e.g.
>JOnAS, ObjectWeb's J2EE platform (LGPL) using TOMCAT (APACHE). FYI JOnAS
>has been audited by lawyers and this works well for them: it is used by
>"critical" applications for users who are very touchy about these legal
>aspects.
>
>On one hand, Objectweb's community is very happy with LGPL for application
>such as JOnAS. But we understand clearly the issue (here we count on
>reciprocity:-).
>
>On the other hand, ObjectWeb's community likes very much the idea of a
>"gateway" license enabling both Apache and ObjectWeb (or any other
>developer without any restriction) to reuse common code.
>
>So let me ask a question:
>In your schema, would it be acceptable for this "gateway license" to be a
>BSD license?
>Could we imagine that some JOnAS components would become BSD (so reusable
>within any other licensed code - even proprietary) while JOnAS would stay
>LGPL?
>
>Whatever the answer is, be assured that we will do our best to find a way
>of sharing code which respects everybody's will and interest.
>
>Cheers,
>
>JPL.
>
>
>
>
>
>Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net> sur 03/09/2003 09:26:20
>
>Pour : geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>cc : architecture@objectweb.org
>Objet : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool
> but LGPL)
>
>
>
>(re-adding the cc: to architecture@objectweb.org)
>
>On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> One key item to recall is that when we came up with the Apache License,
>> one of the main considerations to it was that there would be
>> nothing in the license or code that would restrict *anyone* from
>> taking the code and using it as needed (as long as such basic
>> things as attribution and trademarks were honored).
>
>Correct.
>
>> Thus, you can see that any License that restricts the freedom associated
>> with the user conflicts with the Apache License.
>
>To clarify - if you take A (Apache-licensed) and B (licensed under any
>other license) and combine them into AB, you must follow the terms of both
>licenses when distributing the combined work. Thus, the "derived" license
>- the superset of terms in the licenses of A and B - is what matters.
>The Apache license is designed to nearly disappear in the case of "AB",
>since its requirements are so easy to satisfy.
>
>The GPL is only "compatible" in this same way with code whose license has
>terms that are a strict subset of the GPL's own terms, simply because the
>GPL forbids people from adding additional terms when they redistribute GPL
>code. Strictly speaking there are terms in the Apache license that are
>not in the GPL license - such as the part about mentioning where the
>Apache software came from in "end-user documentation or wherever such
>notices normally appear". This is hardly contrary in spirit to the GPL,
>which itself has a similar clause in section 2c.
>
>While I am not officially speaking for the ASF here, I think everyone at
>the ASF would be fine with a combination of codebase A (Apache-licensed)
>and codebase B (GPL-licensed) resulting in a codebase AB that is
>GPL-licensed. This generosity towards the GPL is the same generosity we
>feel towards corporations including our code in commercial projects.
>However that same reason is why we can not accept GPL'd code into code the
>ASF would redistribute.
>
>The LGPL follows the same rules, though scoped a bit more narrowly to the
>"library" level rather than the whole "work based on the Program" that the
>GPL defines. Modulo some other differences.
>
>
>
>Thus, if the Jonas and Geronimo developers wish to work together on a
>common piece of code that both teams need, it makes sense that the
>codebase they work on should be Apache-licensed. That makes it possible
>for both teams to use and develop common code, even if the end result in
>Jonas is LGPL'd as a whole.
>
>If there is still concern about using Apache-licensed code within GPL or
>LGPL projects due to the FSF's claim that they are incompatible, then
>there are two things that the Apache developers could petition the ASF
>Board to do:
>
>a) Consider making a public statement that the Apache license is
>compatible with the GPL and LGPL. While the FSF may continue to disagree,
>this would reassure everyone that the ASF would not pursue any action to
>prevent the use of Apache software inside a GPL project.
>
>b) Officially dual-license all Apache code under both the Apache license
>and the LGPL.
>
>I consider a) much more likely to succeed than b) for emotional reasons,
>though I tend to think neither is mandatory at this point.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>--
>You receive this message as a subscriber of the architecture@objectweb.org
>mailing list.
>To unsubscribe: mailto:architecture-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
>For general help: mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
>ObjectWeb mailing lists service homepage: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>You receive this message as a subscriber of the architecture@objectweb.org
>mailing list.
>To unsubscribe: mailto:architecture-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
>For general help: mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
>ObjectWeb mailing lists service homepage: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
Re: Réf. : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb ( was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>.
On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Jean-Bernard Stefani
wrote:
> Brian,
>
> We seem to be on the same wavelength :-)
>
>
> So we may have to stay with BSD for that reason. Would that be OK with
> ASF
> ? If it is, I think we in ObectWeb can reach a prompt decision on the
> issue at our next College meeting, as I mentioned.
>
>
Yes, BSD would be OK :)
Re: Réf. : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb ( was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Jean-Bernard Stefani <Je...@inrialpes.fr>.
Brian,
We seem to be on the same wavelength :-)
The licensing scheme you propose (ObjectWeb license on the model of the ASF
one, with mention of Apache and the ASF replaced with ObjectWeb) is
definitely an excellent way to go. However, it is not clear that we can
adopt it because ObjectWeb is essentially a contract among members, not a
moral person (and therefore it is not clear that it can hold a copyright).
INRIA, being a not-for-profit organization, could play the role of a
copyright holder in lieu of ObjectWeb, but it is not clear our corporate
contributors, especially, would relinquish their copyright to INRIA.
So we may have to stay with BSD for that reason. Would that be OK with ASF
? If it is, I think we in ObectWeb can reach a prompt decision on the
issue at our next College meeting, as I mentioned.
Best regards,
Jean-Bernard
At 13:55 -0700 3/09/03, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Jean-Bernard Stefani wrote:
>> I'd like to concur with what Jean-Pierre suggests (i.e. using the BSD
>> license as a way for Apache to make use of ObjectWeb components that may be
>> of interest such as JOTM or ASM) and add a couple of clarifications.
>
>OK. One thing I wanted to note is that the BSD license and the Apache
>license are pretty much equivalent. Other projects use the Apache
>license for their code, replacing mention of "Apache" with their own
>organization, but using the same terms.
>
>> I understand the Apache requirement as 'we (ASF) only want to ship code
>> that meets the terms of code reuse, distribution and modification of the
>> ASF license, including component or library code which may have originated
>> outside of ASF but which is used by the code we ship'.
>>
>> This requirement is not met by the LGPL since the LGPL mandates that any
>> modification made to the component or library code be made available under
>> the same LGPL license. (BTW, this does not mean that the LGPL is viral,
>> since it only impacts modifications to the original component code).
>
>The LGPL places a couple of other requirements on the combined work, but
>you've got it mostly correct.
>
>> If this reading is correct, I think the best way forward (in order to allow
>> ObjectWeb components to be reused in Apache projects) is as Jean-Pierre
>> suggests: let us (ObjectWeb) see if we can alter the license of these
>> components to a license which is compatible with the Apache requirement and
>> would retain the mention of origin and copyright of the ObjectWeb
>> contributors. Like Jean-Pierre, I think the BSD license meets both
>> constraints so it would be an excellent choice.
>
>Great! Can I suggest, so as to make it less confusing, you consider using
>the Apache license itself, but with mention of Apache and the Apache
>Software Foundation replaced with ObjectWeb, et cetera?
>
>> We will in any case discuss the issue at our next College of Architects
>> meeting on Sep. 25 and we can take then the decision to release the
>> components of interest under an appropriate license to further Apache/OW
>> collaboration.
>
>Terrific.
>
> Brian
*************************************************************
Jean-Bernard STEFANI
Research Director, SARDES Project
INRIA Rhône-Alpes
655, avenue de l'Europe
Montbonnot
38334 St Ismier Cedex
France
tel : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 57
fax : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 52
email : Jean-Bernard.Stefani@inria.fr
*************************************************************
Re: Réf. : [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb ( was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Jean-Bernard Stefani wrote:
> I'd like to concur with what Jean-Pierre suggests (i.e. using the BSD
> license as a way for Apache to make use of ObjectWeb components that may be
> of interest such as JOTM or ASM) and add a couple of clarifications.
OK. One thing I wanted to note is that the BSD license and the Apache
license are pretty much equivalent. Other projects use the Apache
license for their code, replacing mention of "Apache" with their own
organization, but using the same terms.
> I understand the Apache requirement as 'we (ASF) only want to ship code
> that meets the terms of code reuse, distribution and modification of the
> ASF license, including component or library code which may have originated
> outside of ASF but which is used by the code we ship'.
>
> This requirement is not met by the LGPL since the LGPL mandates that any
> modification made to the component or library code be made available under
> the same LGPL license. (BTW, this does not mean that the LGPL is viral,
> since it only impacts modifications to the original component code).
The LGPL places a couple of other requirements on the combined work, but
you've got it mostly correct.
> If this reading is correct, I think the best way forward (in order to allow
> ObjectWeb components to be reused in Apache projects) is as Jean-Pierre
> suggests: let us (ObjectWeb) see if we can alter the license of these
> components to a license which is compatible with the Apache requirement and
> would retain the mention of origin and copyright of the ObjectWeb
> contributors. Like Jean-Pierre, I think the BSD license meets both
> constraints so it would be an excellent choice.
Great! Can I suggest, so as to make it less confusing, you consider using
the Apache license itself, but with mention of Apache and the Apache
Software Foundation replaced with ObjectWeb, et cetera?
> We will in any case discuss the issue at our next College of Architects
> meeting on Sep. 25 and we can take then the decision to release the
> components of interest under an appropriate license to further Apache/OW
> collaboration.
Terrific.
Brian