CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> 
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
>>
>>
>> However they are still in the SVN history.
>>
>> Nicola Ken, do you know if we need to go in the back
>> door and completely remove such things?
> 
> 
> It must be done by infrastructure, and they have to keep history in 
> place anyway. BTW, I haven't checked if the license is *really* 
> incompatible.
> 

I just read the license again. Not really got time to look into it 
moreright now, but it is still my understanding that it is compatible - 
but I am not a lawyer and my word cannot be final. Full text of license 
is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php, but perhaps more 
important is the following FAQ entry (from 
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html)

"If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and 
distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
Program, must I make the source code to my module available in 
accordance with the terms of the CPL?

No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. "

This is about using a module within a CPL licensed programme rather than 
a CPL module in another product, but I think it still applies.

The other FAQ entry that was referred to previously in this thread was:

"Does the CPL allow me to take the Source Code for a Program licensed 
under it and include all or part of it in another program licensed under 
the GNU General Public License (GPL), Berkeley Software Distribution 
(BSD) license or other Open Source license?

No. Only the owner of software can decide whether and how to license it 
to others. Contributors to a Program licensed under the CPL understand 
that source code for the Program will be made available under the terms 
of the CPL. Unless you are the owner of the software or have received 
permission from the owner, you are not authorized to apply the terms of 
another license to the Program by including it in a program licensed 
under another Open Source license. By the way, the same answer applies 
if you want to include source code licensed under another Open Source 
license in a program licensed under the CPL.  "

This clearly states that we canot relicense, but I do not see that it 
precludes credited inclusion, furthermore we are not talking about 
software source code here. This is a couple of graphics images, which 
are treated as compiled code I beleive.

Ross

Re: CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> OK, I do have some code affected by this, but it doesn't
> need to be in 0.6, I'll find my answers at licensing.

I meant that we could go to licensing@ as a last resort.
We should try to deal with management issues here.

When the time comes, tell us the situation and we can take
it forward if need be.

> However, this still doesn't satisfy your concerns about
> SVN History.

Our PMC needs to ask infrastructure@ to remove the old ones.

-- 
David Crossley

Re: CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

David Crossley wrote:

> The easiest solution is just to side-step the whole issue
> and make our own little icons, no matter how bad they are.
> Someone else will later create original and better ones.

Already done and committed, but as you point out there may be impact on 
SVN history.

> We do need to understand the CPL in case there is ever
> something that we really do need to use. I would wait until
> we have a major situation, because then we can look for help
> from the licensing at apache dot org mail list. Also there
> will be soon more clear assistance from the ASF about
> compatible licenses.
> 
> That is my advice for the current situation, but if people
> really want to do so, then we can explore further, though
> i would prefer to concentrate on our impending release.

OK, I do have some code affected by this, but it doesn't need to be in 
0.6, I'll find my answers at licensing. However, this still doesn't 
satisfy your concerns about SVN History.

Ross

Re: CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ross Gardler wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> >> Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>> I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
> >>
> >> However they are still in the SVN history.
> >>
> >> Nicola Ken, do you know if we need to go in the back
> >> door and completely remove such things?
> > 
> > It must be done by infrastructure, and they have to keep history in 
> > place anyway. BTW, I haven't checked if the license is *really* 
> > incompatible.
>
> I just read the license again. Not really got time to look into it 
> more right now, but it is still my understanding that it is compatible - 
> but I am not a lawyer and my word cannot be final. Full text of license 
> is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php, but perhaps more 
> important is the following FAQ entry (from 
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html)
> 
> "If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and 
> distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> Program, must I make the source code to my module available in 
> accordance with the terms of the CPL?
> 
> No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. "
> 
> This is about using a module within a CPL licensed programme rather than 
> a CPL module in another product, but I think it still applies.
> 
> The other FAQ entry that was referred to previously in this thread was:
> 
> "Does the CPL allow me to take the Source Code for a Program licensed 
> under it and include all or part of it in another program licensed under 
> the GNU General Public License (GPL), Berkeley Software Distribution 
> (BSD) license or other Open Source license?
> 
> No. Only the owner of software can decide whether and how to license it 
> to others. Contributors to a Program licensed under the CPL understand 
> that source code for the Program will be made available under the terms 
> of the CPL. Unless you are the owner of the software or have received 
> permission from the owner, you are not authorized to apply the terms of 
> another license to the Program by including it in a program licensed 
> under another Open Source license. By the way, the same answer applies 
> if you want to include source code licensed under another Open Source 
> license in a program licensed under the CPL.  "
> 
> This clearly states that we canot relicense, but I do not see that it 
> precludes credited inclusion, furthermore we are not talking about 
> software source code here. This is a couple of graphics images, which
> are treated as compiled code I beleive.

The easiest solution is just to side-step the whole issue
and make our own little icons, no matter how bad they are.
Someone else will later create original and better ones.

We do need to understand the CPL in case there is ever
something that we really do need to use. I would wait until
we have a major situation, because then we can look for help
from the licensing at apache dot org mail list. Also there
will be soon more clear assistance from the ASF about
compatible licenses.

That is my advice for the current situation, but if people
really want to do so, then we can explore further, though
i would prefer to concentrate on our impending release.

-- 
David Crossley