You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2016/01/11 05:18:22 UTC
OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools?
Hi,
While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple of GPL (with special exclusion) in the source made by autoconf/automake. It seems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it’s OK to distribute these files in Apache releases.
However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it need to change?
- This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special exception which is!
- Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this special exception as OK? [4]
For a release contain files in this manner:
- Do we need to mention this in LICENSE?
- Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL with exception header text?
JFYI The text of the exclusion is:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://markmail.org/thread/trsh3f3ucycxlgfm
2. http://markmail.org/thread/wtbf7tb2ooysk3ok
3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple of GPL (with special exclusion)
> in the source made by autoconf/automake. It seems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it’s
> OK to distribute these files in Apache releases.
>
> However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it need to change?
> - This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special exception which is!
> - Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this special exception as OK? [4]
>
> For a release contain files in this manner:
> - Do we need to mention this in LICENSE?
> - Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL with exception header text?
>
> JFYI The text of the exclusion is:
> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
And to pile on top of Justin's question, I'd like to ask whether it
would be permissible
for HAWQ to ship the following folder:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/master/config
To make this question even more interesting: this folder has been lifter
pretty much verbatim from PostgreSQL release tarball. I guess it means that
PostgreSQL community feels it is OK to have it in an otherwise PostgreSQL
licensed release. A useful datapoint for us to consider, perhaps.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Assuming that's the case, thoughts inline.
>
> From what I can see it's autoconf, automake and M4. All are related projects but not sure if they are considered under the same umbrella.
>
> Files include compile, config.guess, config.sub, depcomp, install-sh, libel.m4, ltmail.sh, ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltveriosn.m4,
> lt-obsolete.m4, missing if that helps. Most a GPL with the exception of install-sh which is MIT and the .m4 files which have:
>
> # This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
> # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
> # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
Right, but what about those .m4 macro files that come from the Autoconf Archive?
The statement inside of there release tarballs. E.g.:
http://mirror.keystealth.org/gnu/autoconf-archive/
makes me worried:
COPYING
COPYING.EXCEPTION
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build
tools?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> Assuming that's the case, thoughts inline.
From what I can see it's autoconf, automake and M4. All are related projects but not sure if they are considered under the same umbrella.
Files include compile, config.guess, config.sub, depcomp, install-sh, libel.m4, ltmail.sh, ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltveriosn.m4, lt-obsolete.m4, missing if that helps. Most a GPL with the exception of install-sh which is MIT and the .m4 files which have:
# This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
# unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
# modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
> Could add a note to point out the Autoconf tooling is on the list because of the aforementioned 'FSF autoconf license' in Category A.
So a nice to have but not required.
> Would also be good to get a href of some kind for the autoconf license.
Here’s the latest to the autoconf exception license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/autoconf-exception.html
Is section 2 in that license a concern?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Assuming that's the case, thoughts inline:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Is Singa "distributing this file as part of a program that contains a
> configuration script generated by Autoconf"?
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple
>> of GPL (with special exclusion) in the source made by autoconf/automake. It
>> seems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it’s OK to distribute
>> these files in Apache releases.
>>
>> However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it
>> need to change?
>> - This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2].
>> Except for this special exception which is!
>>
> - Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this
>> special exception as OK? [4]
>>
>
Could add a note to point out the Autoconf tooling is on the list because
of the aforementioned 'FSF autoconf license' in Category A. Would also be
good to get a href of some kind for the autoconf license.
>
>> For a release contain files in this manner:
>> - Do we need to mention this in LICENSE?
>>
>
Feels like it already is - ie) we distribute it under Apache 2.0.
> - Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL
>> with exception header text?
>>
>>
I don't think so.
> JFYI The text of the exclusion is:
>> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
>> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
>> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
>> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
>>
>
Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Is Singa "distributing this file as part of a program that contains a
configuration script generated by Autoconf"?
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple of
> GPL (with special exclusion) in the source made by autoconf/automake. It
> seems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it’s OK to distribute
> these files in Apache releases.
>
> However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it
> need to change?
> - This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2].
> Except for this special exception which is!
> - Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this
> special exception as OK? [4]
>
> For a release contain files in this manner:
> - Do we need to mention this in LICENSE?
> - Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL
> with exception header text?
>
> JFYI The text of the exclusion is:
> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://markmail.org/thread/trsh3f3ucycxlgfm
> 2. http://markmail.org/thread/wtbf7tb2ooysk3ok
> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58
> 4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>