License issue

[Manuel Santillan <sa...@dit.upm.es>]

Hi all,

IANAL, o I'm a bit confused about licenses. Is it possible to commit
code that depends on MPL'd code(Mozilla license)? What about
dependencies on CPL'd code?


Thanx!!

//manuel

Re: License issue

[Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>]

Sorry guys - just read into that and can see that now.
Apologies for missing the point on this one
- R

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 22:14, Rob Walker wrote:
>   
>> Not sure I agree with that view personally:
>>
>> CPL is definitely a license which includes source use - it's our base
>> license for open source work.
>>     
>
> It is related to the restrictions placed on downstream users. IIRC (too lazy 
> to check) CPL had some "contribute back" or "notification" requirements that 
> are not ASL compatible. Cliff's list has been discussed plenty over at 
> legal-discuss@.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>   

-- 


Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com

Re: License issue

[Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>]

On Thursday 07 September 2006 22:14, Rob Walker wrote:
> Not sure I agree with that view personally:
>
> CPL is definitely a license which includes source use - it's our base
> license for open source work.

It is related to the restrictions placed on downstream users. IIRC (too lazy 
to check) CPL had some "contribute back" or "notification" requirements that 
are not ASL compatible. Cliff's list has been discussed plenty over at 
legal-discuss@.

Cheers
Niclas

Re: License issue

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Sorry for the confusion of my response.

The question was about having dependencies from Felix (subproject) code 
to MPL or CPL licensed code.

My response was intended to mean that Apache legal says that it is ok to 
have binary MPL or CPL products in our releases, but not source versions 
of them.

This is an Apache issue, not a general open source issue. The source use 
of these licenses requires some degree of reciprocity, which is why they 
cannot be included in Apache releases.

-> richard

Rob Walker wrote:
> Not sure I agree with that view personally:
>
> CPL is definitely a license which includes source use - it's our base 
> license for open source work.
>
> Also, would be rather odd if they didn't allow source use since I was 
> under impression that both are on the list of approved open source 
> licenses:
>
> http://opensource.org/
>
> But then IA-D-NAL .... D = definitely!
>
> - R
>
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> By the looks of it from this link:
>>
>>    http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>
>> Both MPL and CPL are binary only licenses. So, we cannot include the 
>> source in our releases, but can include binaries...if I understand it 
>> correctly.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>> Manuel Santillan wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> IANAL, o I'm a bit confused about licenses. Is it possible to commit
>>> code that depends on MPL'd code(Mozilla license)? What about
>>> dependencies on CPL'd code?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanx!!
>>>
>>> //manuel
>>>   
>

Re: License issue

[Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>]

Not sure I agree with that view personally:

CPL is definitely a license which includes source use - it's our base 
license for open source work.

Also, would be rather odd if they didn't allow source use since I was 
under impression that both are on the list of approved open source licenses:

http://opensource.org/

But then IA-D-NAL .... D = definitely!

- R

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> By the looks of it from this link:
>
>    http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>
> Both MPL and CPL are binary only licenses. So, we cannot include the 
> source in our releases, but can include binaries...if I understand it 
> correctly.
>
> -> richard
>
> Manuel Santillan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> IANAL, o I'm a bit confused about licenses. Is it possible to commit
>> code that depends on MPL'd code(Mozilla license)? What about
>> dependencies on CPL'd code?
>>
>>
>> Thanx!!
>>
>> //manuel
>>   

-- 


Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com

Re: License issue

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

By the looks of it from this link:

    http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html

Both MPL and CPL are binary only licenses. So, we cannot include the 
source in our releases, but can include binaries...if I understand it 
correctly.

-> richard

Manuel Santillan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> IANAL, o I'm a bit confused about licenses. Is it possible to commit
> code that depends on MPL'd code(Mozilla license)? What about
> dependencies on CPL'd code?
>
>
> Thanx!!
>
> //manuel
>