You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2010/01/28 06:08:35 UTC
Artistic licenses
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64 ]
Could I have other opinions on this issue? It's very hard to
characterize the Artistic license between weak copyleft and permissive
with trademark restrictions.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Artistic licenses
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the reply Jennifer, an interesting suggestion. Comments inline:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I found the following in the README for the DKIM library at the CPAN site:
>
>
> COPYRIGHT AND LICENCE
>
> Copyright (C) 2006-2009 by Messiah College
>
> This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the same terms as Perl itself, either Perl version 5.8.6 or,
> at your option, any later version of Perl 5 you may have available.
>
>
> Is this the same notice you're referencing, or did you find something else?
I'll leave that to Stefano, but it's very, very typical Perl library
licensing text (bar the specific mention of 5.8.6).
> If this is the sole notice, then I don't think the issue is whether Artistic
> is Category A or B, but whether the library can be redistributed under the
> ASL.
If by ASL you meant the Apache license (ASL was the old name, AL 2.0
being the replacement), then that's not an issue. Category A doesn't
mean we put AL 2.0 licensing on it, but that its licensing a) does not
affect the AL 2.0 licensing and b) does not go beyond the 'bounds' of
the AL 2.0 (i.e. doesn't surprise the user).
If you mean Artistic license... see below.
> This notice says that you can "redistribute it under the same terms as
> Perl itself," not that the library is subject to the Perl license. With
> this wording, I think the library can be redistributed only under the same
> dual licensing structure (GPL/Artistic) as Perl.
I don't think that is the case - if I understand your argument it's
that the library, for the two purposes of modification and/or
distribution, is under the combined license of GPL and Artistic and
not a choice the redistributor can make between the two.
I agree that you have a semantic argument, but I don't think the
intent of the Perl community is to somehow merge the two licenses
(especially given that they're considered incompatible by the FSF,
thus the dual licensing in the first place). Instead the intent (imo)
is to mimic the dual licensing structure of Perl.
> Also, if the email messages and other data are part of the library
> distribution, I would view them as subject to the same terms as the modules.
Absolutely. Unless there's something to the otherwise, the package's
general licensing would apply.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Artistic licenses
Posted by Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com>.
I found the following in the README for the DKIM library at the CPAN site:
COPYRIGHT AND LICENCE
Copyright (C) 2006-2009 by Messiah College
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself, either Perl version 5.8.6 or,
at your option, any later version of Perl 5 you may have available.
Is this the same notice you're referencing, or did you find something else?
If this is the sole notice, then I don't think the issue is whether Artistic
is Category A or B, but whether the library can be redistributed under the
ASL. This notice says that you can "redistribute it under the same terms as
Perl itself," not that the library is subject to the Perl license. With
this wording, I think the library can be redistributed only under the same
dual licensing structure (GPL/Artistic) as Perl.
Also, if the email messages and other data are part of the library
distribution, I would view them as subject to the same terms as the modules.
Jennifer
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64 ]
>
> Could I have other opinions on this issue? It's very hard to
> characterize the Artistic license between weak copyleft and permissive
> with trademark restrictions.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>