You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Scott Lombard <lo...@gmail.com> on 2011/03/24 21:20:07 UTC
[Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
We have been discussing under
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380 the possibility of
bringing Sharpen into our repo under a db4o Opensource Compatibility License
(dOCL) license. Here are the basics of what we have been discussing.
Versant allows db4o products to be licensed three different ways as
discussed on the following website
http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/docl.aspx. It seemed to me
that it may be possible that the ASF could come to an agreement with Versant
and under a db4o Opensource Compatibility License (dOCL) allow a Sharpen
variant in our repository. The other option is to create a fork under the
GPL license and maintain it outside of ASF.
Scott
[Lucene.Net] Re: Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
Posted by Scott Lombard <sl...@theta.net>.
I sent an email to the db4o team to see what they think. When I get a
response back from them we should have more answers. At that point it
will either be a no on their end or we will have specific items to
discuss.
Scott
On Friday, March 25, 2011, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2011-03-25, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
>> Stefan, how do you read their licensing:
>
>> http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/docl.aspx
>
>> By your reading is it possible to include this in our repo to keep
>> everything together? or would this have to be outside the ASF?
>
> The usual IANAL disclaimer applies and we could ask for legal clearance
> if we absolutely think we need it.
>
> From a cursory glance I don't think the policy applies to our use-case
> at all.
>
> ,----
> | 1. Subject
> |
> | "Software" means the current version of the db4o database engine
> | software and all patches, bug fixes, error corrections and future
> | versions.
> `----
>
> AFAIU Sharpen is not part of the database engine.
>
> and in addition I'm not sure that a fork of the codebase is in line with
> what they'd consider a derivative work.
>
> Even if it would apply, the license to the original code base was
> non-transferable and you'd only get the right to sublicense the original
> code base under the rules of the GPL (section 2b - in addition there is
> no software at all prior to accepting the agreement). I don't see how
> this could work.
>
> If you really feel that forking Sharpen is the best way to move forward
> - not my call to make - then forking the GPLed sources into a project
> that is using the GPL itself seems to be the only choice that was
> legally sane.
>
> Stefan
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-03-25, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> Stefan, how do you read their licensing:
> http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/docl.aspx
> By your reading is it possible to include this in our repo to keep
> everything together? or would this have to be outside the ASF?
The usual IANAL disclaimer applies and we could ask for legal clearance
if we absolutely think we need it.
>From a cursory glance I don't think the policy applies to our use-case
at all.
,----
| 1. Subject
|
| "Software" means the current version of the db4o database engine
| software and all patches, bug fixes, error corrections and future
| versions.
`----
AFAIU Sharpen is not part of the database engine.
and in addition I'm not sure that a fork of the codebase is in line with
what they'd consider a derivative work.
Even if it would apply, the license to the original code base was
non-transferable and you'd only get the right to sublicense the original
code base under the rules of the GPL (section 2b - in addition there is
no software at all prior to accepting the agreement). I don't see how
this could work.
If you really feel that forking Sharpen is the best way to move forward
- not my call to make - then forking the GPLed sources into a project
that is using the GPL itself seems to be the only choice that was
legally sane.
Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
Stefan, how do you read their licensing:
http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/docl.aspx
By your reading is it possible to include this in our repo to keep everything together? or would this have to be outside the ASF?
----------------------------------------
> From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:33:21 -0700
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
>
>
>
> >
> > > I haven't followed the discussion as to why you think a fork is
> > > necessary. Do you think they'd understand your reasons and agree the
> > > fork is a good idea?
> >
>
> Alex reached out to them. They said they are open to accepting patches, however their repo and response times that Alex could see were extremely slow. Further, it's likely we will want to do more Lucene Java -> .Net specific work that they might decide doesn't fit will with their overall goals.
>
> I think at the end of the day, I feel (others maybe agree), that it's easier to just fork it at the start than attempt to give them patches and worry about lag time or rejection.
>
>
> > Even if they did, the Apache Software License is the only one that could
> > be used for the fork if it was to be developed inside the ASF repo.
> >
>
> Completely understood - I *think* that is possible. Obviously if it's not, we have to do it else where
>
> There's back converation on the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380
>
> ~Prescott
RE: [Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
>
> > I haven't followed the discussion as to why you think a fork is
> > necessary. Do you think they'd understand your reasons and agree the
> > fork is a good idea?
>
Alex reached out to them. They said they are open to accepting patches, however their repo and response times that Alex could see were extremely slow. Further, it's likely we will want to do more Lucene Java -> .Net specific work that they might decide doesn't fit will with their overall goals.
I think at the end of the day, I feel (others maybe agree), that it's easier to just fork it at the start than attempt to give them patches and worry about lag time or rejection.
> Even if they did, the Apache Software License is the only one that could
> be used for the fork if it was to be developed inside the ASF repo.
>
Completely understood - I *think* that is possible. Obviously if it's not, we have to do it else where
There's back converation on the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380
~Prescott
Re: [Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-03-25, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-03-24, Scott Lombard wrote:
>> It seemed to me that it may be possible that the ASF could come to an
>> agreement with Versant and under a db4o Opensource Compatibility
>> License (dOCL) allow a Sharpen variant in our repository.
> I haven't followed the discussion as to why you think a fork is
> necessary. Do you think they'd understand your reasons and agree the
> fork is a good idea?
Even if they did, the Apache Software License is the only one that could
be used for the fork if it was to be developed inside the ASF repo.
Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] Creating a ASF fork of Sharpen under a dOCL license
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-03-24, Scott Lombard wrote:
> It seemed to me that it may be possible that the ASF could come to an
> agreement with Versant and under a db4o Opensource Compatibility
> License (dOCL) allow a Sharpen variant in our repository.
I haven't followed the discussion as to why you think a fork is
necessary. Do you think they'd understand your reasons and agree the
fork is a good idea?
> The other option is to create a fork under the GPL license and
> maintain it outside of ASF.
If you can live with Google code, apache-extras.org may be an option.
Stefan