You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/11 22:05:46 UTC
Handling a license violation
Hi,
I've encountered a project that has taken a part of the Apache
Jackrabbit codebase, replaced the license headers, renamed the
org.apache.jackrabbit packages, and released the resulting code as a
part of a larger application under the GPL with no mention of the
Apache License or the NOTICE file.
I believe and hope that the issue can be resolved simply by politely
asking them to honor the conditions of section 4 of the Apache
License. But before doing that and to avoid potential pitfalls I would
appreciate pointers to or advice on how similar cases have best been
handled before.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@apache.org>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 4/12/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@apache.org> wrote:
...
>> and how _not_ to handle a license violation ....
>>
>> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/229740/bd7701b1407c8498/
>
> Respectfully suggest the committee link to this on a FAQ - superb page.
heh, in a week I'll post a followup link to the article, which would be
a better link. Blinded by the timeliness of the topic this morning, I
posted the subscriber link. Careless of me.
-jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 4/12/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@apache.org> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Jukka,
> >
> > exact details and email draft (of what you want to send to them) to
> > legal-internal please.
>
> and how _not_ to handle a license violation ....
>
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/229740/bd7701b1407c8498/
Respectfully suggest the committee link to this on a FAQ - superb page.
Thanks Jean,
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[OT] Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@apache.org>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Jukka,
>
> exact details and email draft (of what you want to send to them) to
> legal-internal please.
and how _not_ to handle a license violation ....
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/229740/bd7701b1407c8498/
-jean
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 4/12/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 4/12/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 12 April 2007 04:05, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> > > I believe and hope that the issue can be resolved simply by politely
>> > > asking them to honor the conditions of section 4 of the Apache
>> > > License.
>> >
>> > IANAL, but I think this is the most apparent resolve.
>> >
>> > Mind you, if this is an FSF backed project, and it is ALv2, then FSF
>> will have
>> > additional opinion about the use of ALv2 in GPL'd code.
>>
>> It's a private company that makes it's sources available under the
>> GPL. I believe it's a case of using the code first in-house and then
>> deciding to "make it open source" by releasing everything under the
>> GPL without much internal IP clearance.
>>
>> > Also, there are "common sense" concerns relating to "fair use" which
>> shouldn't
>> > trigger licensing requirements. Sun for instance, is Ok with 5-10
>> lines and I
>> > think FSF is recommending 10 lines as the limit of "copy" before
>> licensing
>> > terms kicks in. So, if it is only a really small block, I would not
>> bother.
>>
>> The component in question is about 17.000 lines total. I suspect that
>> they're using Apache code also in other places, but didn't yet do a
>> full review.
>>
>> PS. If someone is interested in the exact details, I can give the
>> pointers in private. I don't want to name the suspects in a public
>> archive as I believe this can be resolved nicely in private.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Jukka,
exact details and email draft (of what you want to send to them) to
legal-internal please.
thanks,
dims
On 4/12/07, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/12/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 April 2007 04:05, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > > I believe and hope that the issue can be resolved simply by politely
> > > asking them to honor the conditions of section 4 of the Apache
> > > License.
> >
> > IANAL, but I think this is the most apparent resolve.
> >
> > Mind you, if this is an FSF backed project, and it is ALv2, then FSF will have
> > additional opinion about the use of ALv2 in GPL'd code.
>
> It's a private company that makes it's sources available under the
> GPL. I believe it's a case of using the code first in-house and then
> deciding to "make it open source" by releasing everything under the
> GPL without much internal IP clearance.
>
> > Also, there are "common sense" concerns relating to "fair use" which shouldn't
> > trigger licensing requirements. Sun for instance, is Ok with 5-10 lines and I
> > think FSF is recommending 10 lines as the limit of "copy" before licensing
> > terms kicks in. So, if it is only a really small block, I would not bother.
>
> The component in question is about 17.000 lines total. I suspect that
> they're using Apache code also in other places, but didn't yet do a
> full review.
>
> PS. If someone is interested in the exact details, I can give the
> pointers in private. I don't want to name the suspects in a public
> archive as I believe this can be resolved nicely in private.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 4/12/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2007 04:05, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > I believe and hope that the issue can be resolved simply by politely
> > asking them to honor the conditions of section 4 of the Apache
> > License.
>
> IANAL, but I think this is the most apparent resolve.
>
> Mind you, if this is an FSF backed project, and it is ALv2, then FSF will have
> additional opinion about the use of ALv2 in GPL'd code.
It's a private company that makes it's sources available under the
GPL. I believe it's a case of using the code first in-house and then
deciding to "make it open source" by releasing everything under the
GPL without much internal IP clearance.
> Also, there are "common sense" concerns relating to "fair use" which shouldn't
> trigger licensing requirements. Sun for instance, is Ok with 5-10 lines and I
> think FSF is recommending 10 lines as the limit of "copy" before licensing
> terms kicks in. So, if it is only a really small block, I would not bother.
The component in question is about 17.000 lines total. I suspect that
they're using Apache code also in other places, but didn't yet do a
full review.
PS. If someone is interested in the exact details, I can give the
pointers in private. I don't want to name the suspects in a public
archive as I believe this can be resolved nicely in private.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thursday 12 April 2007 04:05, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I believe and hope that the issue can be resolved simply by politely
> asking them to honor the conditions of section 4 of the Apache
> License.
IANAL, but I think this is the most apparent resolve.
Mind you, if this is an FSF backed project, and it is ALv2, then FSF will have
additional opinion about the use of ALv2 in GPL'd code.
Also, there are "common sense" concerns relating to "fair use" which shouldn't
trigger licensing requirements. Sun for instance, is Ok with 5-10 lines and I
think FSF is recommending 10 lines as the limit of "copy" before licensing
terms kicks in. So, if it is only a really small block, I would not bother.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 16:14 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Yes - it's a violation, removing LICENSE/NOTICE removes their only
> right to distribute the package, leaving them with no right whatsoever.
+1
the GPL exempts local modifications. distribution (or not) is less
important for the apache license. they have no right to sublicense,
create copies or derivative works either.
they need to restore LICENSE, NOTICE and license headers now. they
should add clear notes in each source file indicating that they have
modified our source and indicating the license for the derivative work
(if it is not the AL).
IMHO the matter of releasing the combined work under the GPL should be
left to the FSF, not the ASF. not everyone agrees that the apache
license is incompatible with GPLv2. apache respects the views of the FSF
on this matter for ethical reasons (not legal ones). it would be
courteous to inform the FSF about possible GPL issues with the codebase
but leave compliance to the FSF.
BTW might be a good idea to run the email you intend to send past
legal-internal before you send it
- robert
Re: Handling a license violation
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Yes - it's a violation, removing LICENSE/NOTICE removes their only
right to distribute the package, leaving them with no right whatsoever.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've encountered a project that has taken a part of the Apache
> Jackrabbit codebase, replaced the license headers, renamed the
> org.apache.jackrabbit packages, and released the resulting code as a
> part of a larger application under the GPL with no mention of the
> Apache License or the NOTICE file.
>
> I believe and hope that the issue can be resolved simply by politely
> asking them to honor the conditions of section 4 of the Apache
> License. But before doing that and to avoid potential pitfalls I would
> appreciate pointers to or advice on how similar cases have best been
> handled before.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org