You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is> on 2017/01/11 18:48:57 UTC
IP clearance template says MPL is OK?
Hi, all-
I just noticed that
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
says:
"Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is covered
by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic,
MIT/X, MIT/W3C, *MPL 1.1*, or something with essentially the same terms."
(emphasis mine)
While I'm flattered that this form says MPL is acceptable, it seems...
incorrect? Might be worth updating to remove MPL and point at Category A
<https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a>?
FWIW-
Luis
Re: IP clearance template says MPL is OK?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1. Thx
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:12 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Wow - thanks Luis :)
>
> That does seem very dated. An older version, btw, said 'all source code' rather than 'all items'.
>
> Given it's saying 'depending upon', MPL wouldn't be off the list as the Category B grouping would apply too. It's also an odd item as the previous item of "Check and make sure that for all items included with the distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute." covers a large amount of the same concept.
>
> Perhaps a: "Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project are compatible with the license guidance given here: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html"
>
> I'll follow up with the Incubator list.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Hen
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is> wrote:
> Hi, all-
> I just noticed that
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> says:
>
> "Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms."
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> While I'm flattered that this form says MPL is acceptable, it seems... incorrect? Might be worth updating to remove MPL and point at Category A?
>
> FWIW-
> Luis
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: IP clearance template says MPL is OK?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Wow - thanks Luis :)
That does seem very dated. An older version, btw, said 'all source code'
rather than 'all items'.
Given it's saying 'depending upon', MPL wouldn't be off the list as the
Category B grouping would apply too. It's also an odd item as the previous
item of "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right to
combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute." covers a large amount
of the same concept.
Perhaps a: "Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
project are compatible with the license guidance given here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html"
I'll follow up with the Incubator list.
Thanks again,
Hen
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is> wrote:
> Hi, all-
> I just noticed that
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> says:
>
> "Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is
> covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD,
> Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, *MPL 1.1*, or something with essentially the
> same terms."
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> While I'm flattered that this form says MPL is acceptable, it seems...
> incorrect? Might be worth updating to remove MPL and point at Category A
> <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a>?
>
> FWIW-
> Luis
>
>