You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> on 2009/04/16 17:19:26 UTC
Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
the offending code.
My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
complicates our build process a little.
We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-T
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
> "Apache friendly" is an imprecise term. In particular, GPL 3 is a
> "disallowed license". See:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
Ah, yep I just saw your answer on the JIRA ticket as well. Our bad.
> Given the above: is Pivot interested including the Flex BlazeDS demo,
> both in SVN and in their distribution, for Demo purposes only? How
> does Pivot intend to identify and marked this software?
Nope, given the above, Pivot will remove the Flex BlazeDS demo (and
only that demo) from SVN and thus from the distribution as well. It's
not a demo that's core to what Pivot's all about anyway. Pivot is
fundamentally an RIA framework, and that's how we market ourselves.
The fact that it can hook into a BlazeDS back-end is ancillary.
-T
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Others may disagree, but before we go there: at this point, is this
>> suggestion moot, or does Pivot still have an interest in including the
>> demos in SVN?
>
> Actually Greg Brown did some digging and found that the demos in
> question were Apache friendly all along (the Google Talk demo was
> Apache 2, and the Flex BlazeDS demo was GPL 3), so we're moving the
> demos back to SVN for future releases. The philosophy of the original
> question is still relevant, however, so your suggestion is not moot.
"Apache friendly" is an imprecise term. In particular, GPL 3 is a
"disallowed license". See:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>From past experience, I've learned to avoid discussing hypothetical
philosophical questions that aren't grounded by a real desire by a
real project to take a specific action. But if you are inclined to
such a thing, take a look at the following, in particular
"Approximation 2":
http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html
Given the above: is Pivot interested including the Flex BlazeDS demo,
both in SVN and in their distribution, for Demo purposes only? How
does Pivot intend to identify and marked this software?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
> Others may disagree, but before we go there: at this point, is this
> suggestion moot, or does Pivot still have an interest in including the
> demos in SVN?
Actually Greg Brown did some digging and found that the demos in
question were Apache friendly all along (the Google Talk demo was
Apache 2, and the Flex BlazeDS demo was GPL 3), so we're moving the
demos back to SVN for future releases. The philosophy of the original
question is still relevant, however, so your suggestion is not moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Demo on how to use project A with Flex" is perfectly reasonable and I
> (depending on the license) would imagine us being fine with it as long
> as licensing was correctly obeyed. Anyone wanting to use project A
> with Flex is already happy with the license of Flex.
This thread has wandered off into a number of interesting (and perhaps
disappointing) directions. Not seeing the above point reiterated, I
simply wanted to express my support for Henri's point and perhaps to
reemphasize it.
Legally, if we follow the terms of the applicable licenses, we can
distribute artifacts that are not compatible with the Apache License,
Version 2.0.
Now the question turns to policy. If a project wishes to legally
distribute artifacts for demo purposes only, and the artifacts are
clearly and conspicuously marked, and we haven't made it perfectly
clear that they are free to do so in our "ASF Legal Previously Asked
Questions", the I suggest that we update our documentation.
Others may disagree, but before we go there: at this point, is this
suggestion moot, or does Pivot still have an interest in including the
demos in SVN?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com>.
Actually, "a few" makes it sound less significant than it is. We'll actually be migrating most of these demos back into the tutorials project over time.
G
On Friday, April 17, 2009, at 10:50AM, "Todd Volkert" <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think Bill's main objection was that *all* demos were moved off ASF
>> infrastructure and making the project 'dual faced' and the ASF part
>> lacking demos.
>> Personally, I would like to see the complicated license issues be
>> moved away as a temporary solution, while building new demo depending
>> on ASF compatible licenses. Then it "just" becomes a matter of time
>> before the old off-site demos becomes obsolete.
>
>Bill and Niclas, you should know that we still maintain a "tutorials"
>sub-project in Pivot that houses several demos meant to instruct new
>users on how to get up to speed. We also plan to bring a few of the
>now-external demos back as we write tutorials on the topics covered by
>them. In the end, only demos that have external dependencies will
>live externally -- the majority of our demos are self-contained and
>will live in the tutorials project in the ASF repository.
>
>-T
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
> I think Bill's main objection was that *all* demos were moved off ASF
> infrastructure and making the project 'dual faced' and the ASF part
> lacking demos.
> Personally, I would like to see the complicated license issues be
> moved away as a temporary solution, while building new demo depending
> on ASF compatible licenses. Then it "just" becomes a matter of time
> before the old off-site demos becomes obsolete.
Bill and Niclas, you should know that we still maintain a "tutorials"
sub-project in Pivot that houses several demos meant to instruct new
users on how to get up to speed. We also plan to bring a few of the
now-external demos back as we write tutorials on the topics covered by
them. In the end, only demos that have external dependencies will
live externally -- the majority of our demos are self-contained and
will live in the tutorials project in the ASF repository.
-T
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Depends Bill.
>
> "Demo on how to use project A with Flex" is perfectly reasonable and I
> (depending on the license) would imagine us being fine with it as long
> as licensing was correctly obeyed. Anyone wanting to use project A
> with Flex is already happy with the license of Flex.
>
> "Demo on how to use project... and we'll stick Flex in because it's
> cool" - exactly as you said.
>
> It depends on the context of the demo imo. Integration demos are good
> - hiding licenses that cause the pain you mention above is bad.
I think Bill's main objection was that *all* demos were moved off ASF
infrastructure and making the project 'dual faced' and the ASF part
lacking demos.
Personally, I would like to see the complicated license issues be
moved away as a temporary solution, while building new demo depending
on ASF compatible licenses. Then it "just" becomes a matter of time
before the old off-site demos becomes obsolete.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Todd Volkert wrote:
>>> You can both have your way;
>>>
>>> - AL code in /repos/asf/
>>> - [L]GPL and even properly licensed proprietary code in /repos/private/
>>> (accessible to all committers)
>>
>> Good to know for the future, but since we want this code to be easily
>> accessible for developers, we've migrated it off of ASF:
>> http://tinyurl.com/c8zrln. Thanks everyone for your thoughtful input.
>
> Understanding that these are demos/examples, that's a substantially
> disappointing direction. You pretty much ensure that the world can't
> really count on basing their code on the demos or examples without being
> locked into a copyleft schema (or questioning the providence of the code
> and again, being unable to use this).
Depends Bill.
"Demo on how to use project A with Flex" is perfectly reasonable and I
(depending on the license) would imagine us being fine with it as long
as licensing was correctly obeyed. Anyone wanting to use project A
with Flex is already happy with the license of Flex.
"Demo on how to use project... and we'll stick Flex in because it's
cool" - exactly as you said.
It depends on the context of the demo imo. Integration demos are good
- hiding licenses that cause the pain you mention above is bad.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Todd Volkert wrote:
>> You can both have your way;
>>
>> - AL code in /repos/asf/
>> - [L]GPL and even properly licensed proprietary code in /repos/private/
>> (accessible to all committers)
>
> Good to know for the future, but since we want this code to be easily
> accessible for developers, we've migrated it off of ASF:
> http://tinyurl.com/c8zrln. Thanks everyone for your thoughtful input.
Understanding that these are demos/examples, that's a substantially
disappointing direction. You pretty much ensure that the world can't
really count on basing their code on the demos or examples without being
locked into a copyleft schema (or questioning the providence of the code
and again, being unable to use this).
So if the plan is to build upon these mixed-license demos at an external
location, I'd encourage the project to rethink the sense in that (and
perhaps bring in all IP-clear AL examples back to the project, abandoning
those with licensing or providence issues.) This would ensure there are
a set of adoptable, modifiable demos for users to start with.
The solution to jfree makes perfect sense.
Bill
p.s. tinyurl links are really bad list etiquette, they ensure the eventual
uselessness of email history. The above link, for future reference is;
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-pivot-dev/200904.mbox/%3C168ef9ac0904161457i3ae10e13r7cc530754683bb3@mail.gmail.com%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
> You can both have your way;
>
> - AL code in /repos/asf/
> - [L]GPL and even properly licensed proprietary code in /repos/private/
> (accessible to all committers)
Good to know for the future, but since we want this code to be easily
accessible for developers, we've migrated it off of ASF:
http://tinyurl.com/c8zrln. Thanks everyone for your thoughtful input.
-T
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ....Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
>> the offending code....
>
> IANAL and I'm not sure what our documented policy is on this (assuming
> we have one), but I don't like this, from a practical point of view.
>
> It seems easy for something to go wrong later in the project,
> resulting in that code being included in distributions and potentially
> causing trouble.
>
> I would much prefer hosting the non-compliant parts outside of ASF repositories.
You can both have your way;
- AL code in /repos/asf/
- [L]GPL and even properly licensed proprietary code in /repos/private/
(accessible to all committers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
> the offending code....
IANAL and I'm not sure what our documented policy is on this (assuming
we have one), but I don't like this, from a practical point of view.
It seems easy for something to go wrong later in the project,
resulting in that code being included in distributions and potentially
causing trouble.
I would much prefer hosting the non-compliant parts outside of ASF repositories.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El lun, 20-04-2009 a las 13:11 +1000, Aristedes Maniatis escribió:
>> On 19/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:
>>
>> > My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the
>> > legal
>> > concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making
>> > documents
>> > available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish
>>
>> Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of
>> the RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant.
>> I'm guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware
>> that they are publishing anything.
>>
>> But it is important to recognise that this conversation doesn't appear
>> to be about legal issues. Rather it is about something else: how
>> Apache wishes to be perceived by the general public. We have seen one
>> project pull demos out of trunk of their repository, so their
>> interpretation seems to be:
>>
>> 1. non-Apache licensed things in official distributions: BAD.
>> 2. non-Apache licensed things in trunk of svn: BAD
>> 3. non-Apache licensed things in branches of svn: OK
>> 4. non-Apache licensed things in history of svn: OK
>>
>
> Agreed for 1. and 2. if you change "non-Apache licensed" with the
> compatibility categories.
>
> for 3. and 4., and after reading other answers, I guess the trigger is
> being able to do lawful distribution, even if our policies don't allow
> bundling. So, having a GPL or LGPL in places where there is no confusion
> with them being part of the release is probably kosher.
>
> 2. is a bit more fuzzy, as a full checkout would make "maybe
> unsuspecting" users incur some risks of mixing licenses.
My tuppence and rewording.
1. non-Apache compatible things in distribution: BAD.
2. non-Apache compatible in any branch of svn, be it trunk, tag or
branch: DISCUSS.
3. non-Apache licensed things in history of svn: RARE.
It's all use case specific - even in #1 there are situations where
we've allowed it. For example see resolved.html for the following:
#####
* Can Cobertura reports be included in Apache distributions?
* Can OSGi metadata be added to weak copyleft binaries - thus
modifying the binary jar file?
#####
The #2 case is where things usually get interesting and we debate.
It's only through these discussions that we start to get a good
feeling as to how we want to handle the grey areas. In the example in
this thread, I'd be very happy with a demo for legally distributable
but Apache-2.0 intrusive license X for a product, if the demo was
regarding integration with that product. Anyone using that demo is
already signed up to the product. I wouldn't be happy if the demo was
how to implement a feature in our project and we've snuck the Apache
2.0 intrusive license X into the demo.
I hold branches (or more specifically tags) to be more important than
trunk because tags continue as a long term point at which someone
would be checking out the source. Trunk and branches are moving
targets and no one expects stability. Tags are akin to a distribution
in that you should be able to go get the tag and rebuild the
distribution.
For 3, anyone taking a random point in time out of svn and trying to
use that from the source; and then complaining that the code back then
does not match our philosophies is not going to get much attention
paid to them. For one our philosophy is not set in stone but changes
as the foundation and external community evolve their views.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> > Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of the
> > RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant. I'm
> > guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware that
> > they are publishing anything.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> The Pirate Bay court conviction last week makes it illegal to provide
> a link which may result in users not obeying Copyright and TradeMark
> law. The only difference between The Pirate Bay and Google, according
> to the court, is that there was intent. So, I challenge your assertion
> that intent is not legally important in these matters.
How about you are both right? :-)
Copyright infringement is a strict liability tort. Intent or state of mind
is not relevant.
Contributory infringement or inducing infringement requires proof of
knowledge and intent. State of mind is relevant. Proof of actual copyright
infringement by someone who was "induced" is also required.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hedhman@gmail.com [mailto:hedhman@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Niclas
> Hedhman
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 8:30 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in
> distributions
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of the
> > RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant. I'm
> > guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware that
> they
> > are publishing anything.
>
> The Pirate Bay court conviction last week makes it illegal to provide
> a link which may result in users not obeying Copyright and TradeMark
> law. The only difference between The Pirate Bay and Google, according
> to the court, is that there was intent. So, I challenge your assertion
> that intent is not legally important in these matters.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au> wrote:
> Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of the
> RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant. I'm
> guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware that they
> are publishing anything.
The Pirate Bay court conviction last week makes it illegal to provide
a link which may result in users not obeying Copyright and TradeMark
law. The only difference between The Pirate Bay and Google, according
to the court, is that there was intent. So, I challenge your assertion
that intent is not legally important in these matters.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in
distributions
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
El lun, 20-04-2009 a las 13:11 +1000, Aristedes Maniatis escribió:
> On 19/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:
>
> > My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the
> > legal
> > concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making
> > documents
> > available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish
>
> Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of
> the RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant.
> I'm guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware
> that they are publishing anything.
>
> But it is important to recognise that this conversation doesn't appear
> to be about legal issues. Rather it is about something else: how
> Apache wishes to be perceived by the general public. We have seen one
> project pull demos out of trunk of their repository, so their
> interpretation seems to be:
>
> 1. non-Apache licensed things in official distributions: BAD.
> 2. non-Apache licensed things in trunk of svn: BAD
> 3. non-Apache licensed things in branches of svn: OK
> 4. non-Apache licensed things in history of svn: OK
>
Agreed for 1. and 2. if you change "non-Apache licensed" with the
compatibility categories.
for 3. and 4., and after reading other answers, I guess the trigger is
being able to do lawful distribution, even if our policies don't allow
bundling. So, having a GPL or LGPL in places where there is no confusion
with them being part of the release is probably kosher.
2. is a bit more fuzzy, as a full checkout would make "maybe
unsuspecting" users incur some risks of mixing licenses.
> Everyone agrees about (1): the others need clear guidance so that PMCs
> can behave consistently.
>
> The second issue is what constitutes a 'non-Apache licensed thing'. Is
> it:
>
> a. The legal definition (that is, something which isn't wholly Apache
> licensed)
> b. Some fuzzy definition which means that (for example) Photoshop
> files are OK if the content they represent is appropriately licensed,
> even if the actual file checked into svn is not legally compatible
> with the Apache license.
> c. Some more relaxed definition which allows for Apache incompatible
> dependencies when they are in non-core elements such as demos, source
> materials or examples. A video presentation demo could be created in
> Flash and therefore 'closed source'. A demo could be useful even if it
> GPL or for that matter completely closed source. The test here is
> whether the 'thing' is part of the 'distribution' which people
> recognise as the httpd web server, or Cayenne ORM library, etc.
>
>
> I'm not an Apache member and don't get a vote, but I think the above
> points should be officially clarified. If I were to give my opinion it
> would be that everything in svn is merely 'working materials' designed
> to be as useful as possible to produce the real products of Apache.
> That means it should not matter whether Apache licensed material is
> produced on computers running Windows, and demoed with a video
> presentation created with Flash and checked into svn, or web site
> content muddied with proprietary Atlassian Confluence markup tags. I
> don't think every tool and demo needs to be Apache licensed for the
> 'real' output to reflect the values of this community.
>
> Ari Maniatis
>
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>.
On 19/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:
> My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the
> legal
> concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making
> documents
> available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish
Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of
the RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant.
I'm guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware
that they are publishing anything.
But it is important to recognise that this conversation doesn't appear
to be about legal issues. Rather it is about something else: how
Apache wishes to be perceived by the general public. We have seen one
project pull demos out of trunk of their repository, so their
interpretation seems to be:
1. non-Apache licensed things in official distributions: BAD.
2. non-Apache licensed things in trunk of svn: BAD
3. non-Apache licensed things in branches of svn: OK
4. non-Apache licensed things in history of svn: OK
Everyone agrees about (1): the others need clear guidance so that PMCs
can behave consistently.
The second issue is what constitutes a 'non-Apache licensed thing'. Is
it:
a. The legal definition (that is, something which isn't wholly Apache
licensed)
b. Some fuzzy definition which means that (for example) Photoshop
files are OK if the content they represent is appropriately licensed,
even if the actual file checked into svn is not legally compatible
with the Apache license.
c. Some more relaxed definition which allows for Apache incompatible
dependencies when they are in non-core elements such as demos, source
materials or examples. A video presentation demo could be created in
Flash and therefore 'closed source'. A demo could be useful even if it
GPL or for that matter completely closed source. The test here is
whether the 'thing' is part of the 'distribution' which people
recognise as the httpd web server, or Cayenne ORM library, etc.
I'm not an Apache member and don't get a vote, but I think the above
points should be officially clarified. If I were to give my opinion it
would be that everything in svn is merely 'working materials' designed
to be as useful as possible to produce the real products of Apache.
That means it should not matter whether Apache licensed material is
produced on computers running Windows, and demoed with a video
presentation created with Flash and checked into svn, or web site
content muddied with proprietary Atlassian Confluence markup tags. I
don't think every tool and demo needs to be Apache licensed for the
'real' output to reflect the values of this community.
Ari Maniatis
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19/04/2009, Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El jue, 16-04-2009 a las 22:52 -0700, Ralph Goers escribió:
>
> > On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 17/04/2009, at 10:34 AM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think this is a valid comparison. The Adobe bits of a
> > >> Photoshop file are syntax, not semantics, which is what is being
> > >> discussed. If a particular Photoshop file contained imagery that's
> > >> not
> > >> compliant with ASF legal requirements, then the file should probably
> > >> be removed.
> > >
> > > OK, my apologies. I thought we were talking about a legal copyright
> > > issue rather than a philosophical distinction. I do believe this is
> > > such a far reaching decision that there needs to be some clear
> > > guidance to PMCs about:
> > >
> > > * what is allowed to remain in svn history (that is, files which are
> > > not in the latest revision). This is relevant to how a project
> > > preserves their history from being in the incubator to becoming a
> > > full-fledged project
> > > * what is allowed to remain in the current revision of branches (for
> > > example branches which are not trunk and might not have been touched
> > > for 2 years)
> > > * how do people make a distinction between some types of non-Apache
> > > licensed material and others (eg. LPGL demo and Adobe licensed
> > > files). Something clearer than "semantics" will be needed since PMCs
> > > will need to decide on a daily basis what is OK and what is not.
> > > * what is the distinction between a maven pom which requires an LGPL
> > > library to run a demo, and a Photoshop file which requires a closed
> > > source application to open? That is, what are the rules for the PMC
> > > to follow when deciding which is allowed and which is not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ari Maniatis
> > >
> > >
> > > NB: I have a law degree, but my knowledge of USA law is sketchy, so
> > > there will be others here with much better understanding of the
> > > relevant legal issues. But I'm guessing we are talking about a moral
> > > (?) standpoint on making a statement about what the Apache license
> > > stands for and how it is perceived by the world, and legal issues
> > > might not be relevant here.
> > >
> >
> > Well, than you probably have more legal experience than most of us. My
> > answers mostly come from having been on this list for years.
> >
> > As far as what is relevant and what is not, many of the answers are at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > . In my opinion you should avoid checking stuff into your public
> > project repository that doesn't meet this.
> >
> > In my personal opinion (and that is all it is, not based on anything
> > legal), I am not too concerned with things that are in svn history but
> > aren't part of any tags and aren't included when I checkout from a
> > branch - including trunk.
> >
>
>
> My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the legal
> concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making documents
> available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish
As regards intent, the links to SVN are usually made easy to find,
often no more difficult than finding download links. This suggests
that there is intent to publish.
> So, there is probably a gradation between:
> - something that gets sent to a list by mistake, and remains archived in
> spite of later expression of error in submission
> - something committed and later explicitly deleted from trunk and/or
> tags, but remaining through history
> - something available in trunk and tags, but that gets stripped from
> "release tarballs" [1]
> - something in the release tarballs
Seems to me that there is very little - if any - difference between
the last two cases, given that SVN links are freely published.
> [1] Note that some scm tools or web frontends, notably git, but also
> trac IIRC, allow to generate a tarball from arbitrary commits, thus
> blurring the last two cases.
>
> Regards
>
> Santiago
>
>
> > Ralph
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in
distributions
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
El jue, 16-04-2009 a las 22:52 -0700, Ralph Goers escribió:
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17/04/2009, at 10:34 AM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think this is a valid comparison. The Adobe bits of a
> >> Photoshop file are syntax, not semantics, which is what is being
> >> discussed. If a particular Photoshop file contained imagery that's
> >> not
> >> compliant with ASF legal requirements, then the file should probably
> >> be removed.
> >
> > OK, my apologies. I thought we were talking about a legal copyright
> > issue rather than a philosophical distinction. I do believe this is
> > such a far reaching decision that there needs to be some clear
> > guidance to PMCs about:
> >
> > * what is allowed to remain in svn history (that is, files which are
> > not in the latest revision). This is relevant to how a project
> > preserves their history from being in the incubator to becoming a
> > full-fledged project
> > * what is allowed to remain in the current revision of branches (for
> > example branches which are not trunk and might not have been touched
> > for 2 years)
> > * how do people make a distinction between some types of non-Apache
> > licensed material and others (eg. LPGL demo and Adobe licensed
> > files). Something clearer than "semantics" will be needed since PMCs
> > will need to decide on a daily basis what is OK and what is not.
> > * what is the distinction between a maven pom which requires an LGPL
> > library to run a demo, and a Photoshop file which requires a closed
> > source application to open? That is, what are the rules for the PMC
> > to follow when deciding which is allowed and which is not.
> >
> >
> > Ari Maniatis
> >
> >
> > NB: I have a law degree, but my knowledge of USA law is sketchy, so
> > there will be others here with much better understanding of the
> > relevant legal issues. But I'm guessing we are talking about a moral
> > (?) standpoint on making a statement about what the Apache license
> > stands for and how it is perceived by the world, and legal issues
> > might not be relevant here.
> >
>
> Well, than you probably have more legal experience than most of us. My
> answers mostly come from having been on this list for years.
>
> As far as what is relevant and what is not, many of the answers are at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> . In my opinion you should avoid checking stuff into your public
> project repository that doesn't meet this.
>
> In my personal opinion (and that is all it is, not based on anything
> legal), I am not too concerned with things that are in svn history but
> aren't part of any tags and aren't included when I checkout from a
> branch - including trunk.
>
My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the legal
concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making documents
available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish
So, there is probably a gradation between:
- something that gets sent to a list by mistake, and remains archived in
spite of later expression of error in submission
- something committed and later explicitly deleted from trunk and/or
tags, but remaining through history
- something available in trunk and tags, but that gets stripped from
"release tarballs" [1]
- something in the release tarballs
[1] Note that some scm tools or web frontends, notably git, but also
trac IIRC, allow to generate a tarball from arbitrary commits, thus
blurring the last two cases.
Regards
Santiago
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>
> On 17/04/2009, at 10:34 AM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a valid comparison. The Adobe bits of a
>> Photoshop file are syntax, not semantics, which is what is being
>> discussed. If a particular Photoshop file contained imagery that's
>> not
>> compliant with ASF legal requirements, then the file should probably
>> be removed.
>
> OK, my apologies. I thought we were talking about a legal copyright
> issue rather than a philosophical distinction. I do believe this is
> such a far reaching decision that there needs to be some clear
> guidance to PMCs about:
>
> * what is allowed to remain in svn history (that is, files which are
> not in the latest revision). This is relevant to how a project
> preserves their history from being in the incubator to becoming a
> full-fledged project
> * what is allowed to remain in the current revision of branches (for
> example branches which are not trunk and might not have been touched
> for 2 years)
> * how do people make a distinction between some types of non-Apache
> licensed material and others (eg. LPGL demo and Adobe licensed
> files). Something clearer than "semantics" will be needed since PMCs
> will need to decide on a daily basis what is OK and what is not.
> * what is the distinction between a maven pom which requires an LGPL
> library to run a demo, and a Photoshop file which requires a closed
> source application to open? That is, what are the rules for the PMC
> to follow when deciding which is allowed and which is not.
>
>
> Ari Maniatis
>
>
> NB: I have a law degree, but my knowledge of USA law is sketchy, so
> there will be others here with much better understanding of the
> relevant legal issues. But I'm guessing we are talking about a moral
> (?) standpoint on making a statement about what the Apache license
> stands for and how it is perceived by the world, and legal issues
> might not be relevant here.
>
Well, than you probably have more legal experience than most of us. My
answers mostly come from having been on this list for years.
As far as what is relevant and what is not, many of the answers are at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
. In my opinion you should avoid checking stuff into your public
project repository that doesn't meet this.
In my personal opinion (and that is all it is, not based on anything
legal), I am not too concerned with things that are in svn history but
aren't part of any tags and aren't included when I checkout from a
branch - including trunk.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>.
On 17/04/2009, at 10:34 AM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I don't think this is a valid comparison. The Adobe bits of a
> Photoshop file are syntax, not semantics, which is what is being
> discussed. If a particular Photoshop file contained imagery that's not
> compliant with ASF legal requirements, then the file should probably
> be removed.
OK, my apologies. I thought we were talking about a legal copyright
issue rather than a philosophical distinction. I do believe this is
such a far reaching decision that there needs to be some clear
guidance to PMCs about:
* what is allowed to remain in svn history (that is, files which are
not in the latest revision). This is relevant to how a project
preserves their history from being in the incubator to becoming a full-
fledged project
* what is allowed to remain in the current revision of branches (for
example branches which are not trunk and might not have been touched
for 2 years)
* how do people make a distinction between some types of non-Apache
licensed material and others (eg. LPGL demo and Adobe licensed files).
Something clearer than "semantics" will be needed since PMCs will need
to decide on a daily basis what is OK and what is not.
* what is the distinction between a maven pom which requires an LGPL
library to run a demo, and a Photoshop file which requires a closed
source application to open? That is, what are the rules for the PMC to
follow when deciding which is allowed and which is not.
Ari Maniatis
NB: I have a law degree, but my knowledge of USA law is sketchy, so
there will be others here with much better understanding of the
relevant legal issues. But I'm guessing we are talking about a moral
(?) standpoint on making a statement about what the Apache license
stands for and how it is perceived by the world, and legal issues
might not be relevant here.
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au> wrote:
>
> On 17/04/2009, at 2:06 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I am under the impression that only code that is licensable under the
>> Apache License can reside in our subversion repository.
>
> This will be a real problem for other projects. For example, what about
> Photoshop files which are kept as the layered source material? The images
> end up in the product as png and Apache licensed. But although the creative
> input to create those Photoshop files might be Apache licensed, certainly
> the files cannot be described that way since they contain proprietary Adobe
> bits. But it would be absurd not to put that sort of source material into
> the repository for developers to easily use, update and reference.
I don't think this is a valid comparison. The Adobe bits of a
Photoshop file are syntax, not semantics, which is what is being
discussed. If a particular Photoshop file contained imagery that's not
compliant with ASF legal requirements, then the file should probably
be removed.
-Nathan
>
> Secondly, from a purely practical standpoint, subversion is a complete
> history and not a moment in time. So unless someone is willing to expunge
> the history of svn of every Photoshop file and every mistaken commit of a
> mis-licened file, it is safe to say that the Apache subversion repository
> contains very many non-Apache licensed files and these are available to the
> general public through viewcvs and other tools.
>
> The discussion here sounds more philosophical than legal. What is the legal
> purpose of trying to expunge these non-Apache licensed files from
> subversion?
>
> Ari Maniatis
>
>
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@ish.com.au>.
On 17/04/2009, at 2:06 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I am under the impression that only code that is licensable under
> the Apache License can reside in our subversion repository.
This will be a real problem for other projects. For example, what
about Photoshop files which are kept as the layered source material?
The images end up in the product as png and Apache licensed. But
although the creative input to create those Photoshop files might be
Apache licensed, certainly the files cannot be described that way
since they contain proprietary Adobe bits. But it would be absurd not
to put that sort of source material into the repository for developers
to easily use, update and reference.
Secondly, from a purely practical standpoint, subversion is a complete
history and not a moment in time. So unless someone is willing to
expunge the history of svn of every Photoshop file and every mistaken
commit of a mis-licened file, it is safe to say that the Apache
subversion repository contains very many non-Apache licensed files and
these are available to the general public through viewcvs and other
tools.
The discussion here sounds more philosophical than legal. What is the
legal purpose of trying to expunge these non-Apache licensed files
from subversion?
Ari Maniatis
-------------------------->
ish
http://www.ish.com.au
Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
The jars were already included. Per the conventions of the incubator,
existing projects dump their existing SVN repository into ASF's when
they can, meaning you get the old history of the projct. But those
were added before we were an ASF project.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/04/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Though note that this relates to Piviot which is an Incubator poddling so
>> the "Special Rule for Incubating Projects" applies -
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator
>
> "... The intent of this rule is to allow existing open source projects
> already including prohibited works to start incubation ..."
>
> As far as I can tell, the jars were added in r754238 28/10/2008.
>
> The SVN pivot directory was created in:
>
> 750753 06/03/09 niclas
>
> The last "Initial import" I can find is
>
> 753694 16/06/08 gkbrown
>
> which is a long time before the jars were added, so it looks to me
> like the jars were not "already included". In which case the exception
> does not apply.
>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I am under the impression that only code that is licensable under the
>> Apache License can reside in our subversion repository.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
>> > > compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
>> > > out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
>> > >
>> > > Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
>> > > provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
>> > > Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
>> > > core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
>> > > live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
>> > >
>> > > -T
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
>> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
>> > > >
>> > > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>> > > > > under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip
>> out
>> > > > > that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution
>> without
>> > > > > the offending code.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>> > > > > repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>> > > > > distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>> > > > > have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>> > > > > complicates our build process a little.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this
>> question
>> > > > > is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > -T
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > 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
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16/04/2009, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though note that this relates to Piviot which is an Incubator poddling so
> the "Special Rule for Incubating Projects" applies -
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator
"... The intent of this rule is to allow existing open source projects
already including prohibited works to start incubation ..."
As far as I can tell, the jars were added in r754238 28/10/2008.
The SVN pivot directory was created in:
750753 06/03/09 niclas
The last "Initial import" I can find is
753694 16/06/08 gkbrown
which is a long time before the jars were added, so it looks to me
like the jars were not "already included". In which case the exception
does not apply.
> ...ant
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> > I am under the impression that only code that is licensable under the
> Apache License can reside in our subversion repository.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
> > > compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
> > > out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
> > >
> > > Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
> > > provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
> > > Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
> > > core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
> > > live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
> > >
> > > -T
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> > > > > under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip
> out
> > > > > that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution
> without
> > > > > the offending code.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
> > > > > repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
> > > > > distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
> > > > > have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
> > > > > complicates our build process a little.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this
> question
> > > > > is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > -T
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Though note that this relates to Piviot which is an Incubator poddling so
the "Special Rule for Incubating Projects" applies -
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator
...ant
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> I am under the impression that only code that is licensable under the
> Apache License can reside in our subversion repository.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
> The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
>> compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
>> out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
>>
>> Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
>> provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
>> Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
>> core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
>> live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
>>
>> -T
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>>
>>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>>>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
>>>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
>>>> the offending code.
>>>>
>>>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>>>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>>>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>>>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>>>> complicates our build process a little.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
>>>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> -T
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I am under the impression that only code that is licensable under the
Apache License can reside in our subversion repository.
Ralph
On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
> compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
> out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
>
> Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
> provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
> Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
> core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
> live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
>
> -T
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
>> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>
>>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip
>>> out
>>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution
>>> without
>>> the offending code.
>>>
>>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>>> complicates our build process a little.
>>>
>>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this
>>> question
>>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -T
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Craig Russell wrote:
> 3. IIRC, the last time we at legal discussed this issue, we came to no
> conclusion whether SVN was considered a distribution simply because
> someone could check out the code from our working repository. Some
> argued that since the code is available from our repository without
> restriction (no click-through license or disclaimer), then by
> definition it's a distribution. Others argue that Apache makes a huge
> deal of the process of releasing code, producing source and binary
> DISTRIBUTIONs (emphasis is MINE), and voting; and so the artifacts
> that are distributed and mirrored worldwide are our distributions, not
> the SVN artifacts.
I don't remember participating in that discussion, so forgive me if I
misinterpret this question or say silly things that you've already decided.
Companies deal with this problem every day. When a US company works with an
Indian contractor on some project, copying of tools or other software
between the two of them is probably a distribution (local law applies). That
requires a license. So, too, it is a distribution when ASF members copy and
share code among themselves. They each work for different companies and are
not employees of ASF. The licenses for those shared tools must permit that
copying and distribution.
The product jointly developed by them also is, to use Craig's emphasis, a
DISTRIBUTION. For ASF DISTRIBUTIONs, they need to be under the Apache
License. The reason we don't DISTRIBUTE those non-Apache works to our
customers is not because we can't, but because we won't.
However, referring now just to our shared tools, can't they include GPL
works or even proprietary works? Why couldn't we put a shared Linux
distribution in our working repository, or even a version of Windows that
Microsoft licenses for a shared development environment? We shouldn't mind
distributing those tools to each other under the terms of those licenses for
development purposes, as long as we don't DISTRIBUTE them to our customers,
and as long as they don't affect the Apache License terms for our own
DISTRIBUTIONs.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:43 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in
> distributions
>
> Three points:
>
> 1. If the distribution artifacts have no prohibited code, whether you
> can release them is a separate topic. I don't think that what is in
> SVN whence the release was produced is relevant to whether the release
> is ok.
>
> 2. Best practice (IMHO) is to avoid putting prohibited code into SVN
> even for developer convenience. Developers should be able to download
> their own copies of prohibited code and put them into their own
> environments. Scripts that are checked into SVN can make this easier.
>
> 3. IIRC, the last time we at legal discussed this issue, we came to no
> conclusion whether SVN was considered a distribution simply because
> someone could check out the code from our working repository. Some
> argued that since the code is available from our repository without
> restriction (no click-through license or disclaimer), then by
> definition it's a distribution. Others argue that Apache makes a huge
> deal of the process of releasing code, producing source and binary
> DISTRIBUTIONs (emphasis is MINE), and voting; and so the artifacts
> that are distributed and mirrored worldwide are our distributions, not
> the SVN artifacts.
>
> 4. IANAL (and apparently can't count either).
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
> > The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
> > compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
> > out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
> >
> > Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
> > provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
> > Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
> > core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
> > live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
> >
> > -T
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
> >>
> >> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> >>
> >>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> >>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip
> >>> out
> >>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution
> >>> without
> >>> the offending code.
> >>>
> >>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
> >>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
> >>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
> >>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
> >>> complicates our build process a little.
> >>>
> >>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this
> >>> question
> >>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> -T
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Three points:
1. If the distribution artifacts have no prohibited code, whether you
can release them is a separate topic. I don't think that what is in
SVN whence the release was produced is relevant to whether the release
is ok.
2. Best practice (IMHO) is to avoid putting prohibited code into SVN
even for developer convenience. Developers should be able to download
their own copies of prohibited code and put them into their own
environments. Scripts that are checked into SVN can make this easier.
3. IIRC, the last time we at legal discussed this issue, we came to no
conclusion whether SVN was considered a distribution simply because
someone could check out the code from our working repository. Some
argued that since the code is available from our repository without
restriction (no click-through license or disclaimer), then by
definition it's a distribution. Others argue that Apache makes a huge
deal of the process of releasing code, producing source and binary
DISTRIBUTIONs (emphasis is MINE), and voting; and so the artifacts
that are distributed and mirrored worldwide are our distributions, not
the SVN artifacts.
4. IANAL (and apparently can't count either).
Craig
On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
> compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
> out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
>
> Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
> provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
> Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
> core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
> live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
>
> -T
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
>> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>
>>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip
>>> out
>>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution
>>> without
>>> the offending code.
>>>
>>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>>> complicates our build process a little.
>>>
>>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this
>>> question
>>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -T
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
Apache-license-friendly. And our release archives only contain the
core platform. But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
-T
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
>> the offending code.
>>
>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>> complicates our build process a little.
>>
>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -T
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
> the offending code.
>
> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
> complicates our build process a little.
>
> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> -T
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
>> * The gdata demo and associated jars
>> * The flex data services demo and associated jars
>>
>> IIRC, both these had non-Apache friendly licenses, so we exclude them
>> both from the releases, but we still run the live demos on the Wiki.
>
> What are the licenses? Especially if they are not-friendly then I'd
> expect to see it spelt out in SVN or not there.
GData looks like it's Apache 2. Flex looks like it's proprietary.
Rather than fragment our demos into compliant here and non-compliant
there, I opted for all demos being migrated off of ASF, simply because
we want to encourage contributing developers to contribute demos
freely and not have to worry about possible licensing issues when
doing so. And this way, users wishing to see the source of the demos
can look in one place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com>.
>> * The gdata demo and associated jars
>> * The flex data services demo and associated jars
>>
>> IIRC, both these had non-Apache friendly licenses, so we exclude them
>> both from the releases, but we still run the live demos on the Wiki.
>
>What are the licenses? Especially if they are not-friendly then I'd
>expect to see it spelt out in SVN or not there.
I'm actually not sure we ever even looked into these licenses since we knew were never going to include them in the distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's the following:
>
> * The groovy scripting engine jars to run the scripting demo
Groovy is BSD/Apache licensed.
> The demo builds without these but does not run without these. So we
> push them out to the Wiki to run our live demo, but we don't release
> them.
>
> * The gdata demo and associated jars
> * The flex data services demo and associated jars
>
> IIRC, both these had non-Apache friendly licenses, so we exclude them
> both from the releases, but we still run the live demos on the Wiki.
What are the licenses? Especially if they are not-friendly then I'd
expect to see it spelt out in SVN or not there.
> * The JFree charts provider and associated jars
>
> JFree is licensed under LGPL, so we cannot build anything that depends
> on them. As such, we architected our charts API to be service-based,
> and the JFree provider is just one such service provider. But we
> release the JFree provider through Google Code. We just build it from
> within the ASF repository.
>
> For all of the above, note that we are actively moving them off of the
> ASF repository just to cover all bases (see
> http://code.google.com/p/pivot-demos/). The issue at hand now is
> two-fold:
+1 :) Especially for jfree anyway.
> 1) Pressing -- can we release 1.1 if it is based on a tag that
> contains these things in SVN?
Delete them from the tag before building so that all we're talking
about is something on trunk.
> 2) Academic -- is it OK to keep such things in SVN if you never "release" them?
Will depend on license. The LGPL JFreeChart example... sounds feasible
to me but I'd want to see some good separation in SVN from the other
source and noting of the license.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>.
It's the following:
* The groovy scripting engine jars to run the scripting demo
The demo builds without these but does not run without these. So we
push them out to the Wiki to run our live demo, but we don't release
them.
* The gdata demo and associated jars
* The flex data services demo and associated jars
IIRC, both these had non-Apache friendly licenses, so we exclude them
both from the releases, but we still run the live demos on the Wiki.
* The JFree charts provider and associated jars
JFree is licensed under LGPL, so we cannot build anything that depends
on them. As such, we architected our charts API to be service-based,
and the JFree provider is just one such service provider. But we
release the JFree provider through Google Code. We just build it from
within the ASF repository.
For all of the above, note that we are actively moving them off of the
ASF repository just to cover all bases (see
http://code.google.com/p/pivot-demos/). The issue at hand now is
two-fold:
1) Pressing -- can we release 1.1 if it is based on a tag that
contains these things in SVN?
2) Academic -- is it OK to keep such things in SVN if you never "release" them?
Thanks,
-T
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rolling back a bit - which jars are we talking about? The gdata ones
> for the demo? What's the license for them, and what's the part where
> LGPL comes in?
>
> Is this a demo that runs on the website somehow, or one that only has
> value if people download it to run it locally?
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
>> the offending code.
>>
>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>> complicates our build process a little.
>>
>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -T
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
For the latter... the instructions are for the user to get the jars themselves?
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com> wrote:
> Some run on the website, but others must be run locally. However, none of the required JARs are included in the distribution artifacts.
>
> On Thursday, April 16, 2009, at 03:53PM, "Henri Yandell" <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Rolling back a bit - which jars are we talking about? The gdata ones
>>for the demo? What's the license for them, and what's the part where
>>LGPL comes in?
>>
>>Is this a demo that runs on the website somehow, or one that only has
>>value if people download it to run it locally?
>>
>>On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
>>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
>>> the offending code.
>>>
>>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>>> complicates our build process a little.
>>>
>>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
>>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -T
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com>.
Some run on the website, but others must be run locally. However, none of the required JARs are included in the distribution artifacts.
On Thursday, April 16, 2009, at 03:53PM, "Henri Yandell" <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Rolling back a bit - which jars are we talking about? The gdata ones
>for the demo? What's the license for them, and what's the part where
>LGPL comes in?
>
>Is this a demo that runs on the website somehow, or one that only has
>value if people download it to run it locally?
>
>On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
>> the offending code.
>>
>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>> complicates our build process a little.
>>
>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -T
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
Rolling back a bit - which jars are we talking about? The gdata ones
for the demo? What's the license for them, and what's the part where
LGPL comes in?
Is this a demo that runs on the website somehow, or one that only has
value if people download it to run it locally?
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
> the offending code.
>
> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
> distribute? I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
> complicates our build process a little.
>
> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> -T
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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