You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@jspwiki.apache.org by Juergen Weber <we...@gmail.com> on 2009/12/18 16:17:20 UTC
Contributed Plugins License
While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-545) this is different for
Contributed Plugins.
Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none
contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an
unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at
http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ContributedPlugins#section-ContributedPlugins-QuestionsAndTips
A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would de
facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and
include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily
take a plugin into core.
Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g.
commercial, Apache, ...
Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force
contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a new
one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment
form you have to license attachments to Apache.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Juergen
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26844884.html
Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Contributed Plugins License
Posted by Juergen Weber <we...@gmail.com>.
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
>> I think finally Contributed Plugins should also be together with JSPWiki
>> sources on Apache servers. I guess that means contributions have to be
>> Apache licensed, anyway.
>
> Well, eventually they would have to be Apache-licensed if we wanted to
> distribute them.
>
>> I understand contributors would have to sign Individual Contributor
>> License
>> Agreement.
>
> This is correct. However, in Apache lingo "Contributor" is the guy who
> actually contributes code which eventually ends up in the Apache SVN.
>
>> In the mean time I'd suggest to put this text on the Contributor Wiki
>> page:
>> -----
>> As JSPWiki is under Apache license we ask you to put your contributed
>> plugins under Apache license, too. So other JSPWiki users can legally use
>> your plugins together with JSPWiki.
>>
>> You might also consider create a project for your plugin on
>> code.google.com,
>> java.net or another hoster for open source project and link to it from
>> here.
>> -----
>
> That's incorrect. ASL only governs distribution, not use. So you can use
> whatever code you want together with JSPWiki, no matter how it's licensed.
> However, the Apache JSPWiki project can only put stuff in the SVN which
> has been licensed under the ASL, and the contributor has signed a Software
> Grant or a Contributor License Agreement.
>
You're right.
Still, I guess most people uploading plugins don't think about licensing, so
I think if the Wiki page suggests / prods to use Apache license, people will
do it. And this ends with more Apache licensed code which is a good thing.
If you are a tiny software shop and build something on JSPWiki, you cannot
distribute JSPWiki with GPLed plugins. Even if you are a daughter company of
a BigCorp giving the software to BigCorp is distribution.
> But it might be a nice idea to start a separate project on one of the
> places you mention to gather the plugins into a single place and help
> building code which is not directly maintained by JSPWiki committers.
>
> /Janne
>
.. and this java.net JSPWiki Plugins drop box project could have Apache
license by default.
So a good plugin could finally move into Apache svn.
8-)
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26888336.html
Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Contributed Plugins License
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <ja...@ecyrd.com>.
> I think finally Contributed Plugins should also be together with JSPWiki
> sources on Apache servers. I guess that means contributions have to be
> Apache licensed, anyway.
Well, eventually they would have to be Apache-licensed if we wanted to distribute them.
> I understand contributors would have to sign Individual Contributor License
> Agreement.
This is correct. However, in Apache lingo "Contributor" is the guy who actually contributes code which eventually ends up in the Apache SVN.
> In the mean time I'd suggest to put this text on the Contributor Wiki page:
> -----
> As JSPWiki is under Apache license we ask you to put your contributed
> plugins under Apache license, too. So other JSPWiki users can legally use
> your plugins together with JSPWiki.
>
> You might also consider create a project for your plugin on code.google.com,
> java.net or another hoster for open source project and link to it from here.
> -----
That's incorrect. ASL only governs distribution, not use. So you can use whatever code you want together with JSPWiki, no matter how it's licensed. However, the Apache JSPWiki project can only put stuff in the SVN which has been licensed under the ASL, and the contributor has signed a Software Grant or a Contributor License Agreement.
But it might be a nice idea to start a separate project on one of the places you mention to gather the plugins into a single place and help building code which is not directly maintained by JSPWiki committers.
/Janne
Re: Contributed Plugins License
Posted by Juergen Weber <we...@gmail.com>.
I browsed some Apache FAQs and the thing doesn't seem easy anymore, I'm not a
lawyer 8-(
I think finally Contributed Plugins should also be together with JSPWiki
sources on Apache servers. I guess that means contributions have to be
Apache licensed, anyway.
"Any code submitted to the Apache project must be compatible with the Apache
License, and the act of submission must be viewed as an implicit license of
the submitted code to the Apache Software Foundation. "
(http://ant.apache.org/ant_task_guidelines.html)
The most similar to JSPWiki Plugins seem to be Maven plugins. And they link
to the committer FAQ from
http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-helping.html
Ant say:
"Because the Gnu GPL license immediately extends to cover any larger
application (or library, in the case of LGPL) into which it is incorporated,
the Ant team cannot incorporate any task based upon GPL or LGPL source into
the Ant codebase. You are free to submit it, but it will be politely and
firmly rejected. "
http://ant.apache.org/ant_task_guidelines.html
See also this draft: http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html
I understand contributors would have to sign Individual Contributor License
Agreement.
So I'd suggest you contact the apache people who helped you move JSPWiki to
incubator.
In the mean time I'd suggest to put this text on the Contributor Wiki page:
-----
As JSPWiki is under Apache license we ask you to put your contributed
plugins under Apache license, too. So other JSPWiki users can legally use
your plugins together with JSPWiki.
You might also consider create a project for your plugin on code.google.com,
java.net or another hoster for open source project and link to it from here.
-----
Greetings, Juergen
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
>
> This is an interesting question. I don't think we can in any way force
> people to adopt some particular license (though since you cannot
> relicense, I'm not sure how the different viral licenses would work - a
> GPL plugin for an Apache-based program could certainly not enforce us to
> obey the GPL).
>
> It might be a good idea to add instructions how to license your code under
> the ASL to the ContributedPlugins, but we should be careful not to imply
> that it's the only option. But I think it might be a good idea to
> encourage people to declare at least some sort of a license.
>
> Could please write up something, Jürgen?
>
> /Janne
>
> On 18 Dec 2009, at 17:17, Juergen Weber wrote:
>
>>
>> While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-545) this is different for
>> Contributed Plugins.
>> Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none
>> contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an
>> unsatisfactory state of affairs.
>>
>> I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at
>> http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ContributedPlugins#section-ContributedPlugins-QuestionsAndTips
>>
>> A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would
>> de
>> facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and
>> include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily
>> take a plugin into core.
>>
>> Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g.
>> commercial, Apache, ...
>>
>> Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force
>> contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a
>> new
>> one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment
>> form you have to license attachments to Apache.
>>
>> What do you think?
>> Thanks,
>> Juergen
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26844884.html
>> Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26885831.html
Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Contributed Plugins License
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <ja...@ecyrd.com>.
This is an interesting question. I don't think we can in any way force people to adopt some particular license (though since you cannot relicense, I'm not sure how the different viral licenses would work - a GPL plugin for an Apache-based program could certainly not enforce us to obey the GPL).
It might be a good idea to add instructions how to license your code under the ASL to the ContributedPlugins, but we should be careful not to imply that it's the only option. But I think it might be a good idea to encourage people to declare at least some sort of a license.
Could please write up something, Jürgen?
/Janne
On 18 Dec 2009, at 17:17, Juergen Weber wrote:
>
> While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-545) this is different for
> Contributed Plugins.
> Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none
> contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an
> unsatisfactory state of affairs.
>
> I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at
> http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ContributedPlugins#section-ContributedPlugins-QuestionsAndTips
>
> A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would de
> facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and
> include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily
> take a plugin into core.
>
> Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g.
> commercial, Apache, ...
>
> Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force
> contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a new
> one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment
> form you have to license attachments to Apache.
>
> What do you think?
> Thanks,
> Juergen
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26844884.html
> Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.