You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/07/17 23:57:14 UTC
[jira] Created: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
---------------------------------------------------
Key: LEGAL-54
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
Project: Legal Discuss
Issue Type: Task
Reporter: Ralph Goers
I recommend something like the following.
Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
...
Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
features that are not enabled by default.
Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12793095#action_12793095 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-54:
----------------------------------
You sure are making this a pain. You chose to ignore Sam's email in which he proposed moving the section into resolved.html. Essentially, this issue simply is asking to do what Sam suggested in that email which I am quoting here.
>From http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u
Specifically, I'm talking about moving
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x
and
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#transition-examples
to
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
... while striking the words "transition and" from the text.
I'm open to wordsmithing suggestions, but the ideas expressed below
seem uncontroversial and have withstood the test of time. There
clearly will need to be text added to introduce the term "Category B",
and I'm inclined to expand the scope of that category from "reciprocal
licenses" to something that conveys the notion of licenses where
approval is contingent on usage. Perhaps someday LGPL could be moved
into such a category. I, for example, am untroubled by purely
optional dependencies on LGPL code.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12873476#action_12873476 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-54:
----------------------------------
I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't C# be covered under http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#platform? In this case the majority of the users would already have .NET installed.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792976#action_12792976 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-54:
----------------------------------
Actually, the abstract answer is already "yes". The issue to be resolved here is that http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x gives the impression that the answer is "no". http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition already says works under the LGPL (and other restricted licenses) can be used as optional dependencies and describes how. Sam proposed the wording that is incorporated there http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u. What I am attempting to fix is the need to a) ask permission for something that has already been granted and b) have to search, open a Jira issue or send an email to find out it is OK. If you are proposing that the text in 3party.html be changed then I would suggest you open a separate Jira issue for that.
If you don't like the text I proposed then just make the answer to the question restate what is in 3party.html. The statement I suggested regarding components used during the build process has since been addressed by LEGAL-58.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Sebb (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12874074#action_12874074 ]
Sebb commented on LEGAL-54:
---------------------------
I don't understand the following query - seems ungrammatical, and "them" seems ambiguous.
"Q. Can Apache projects rely on components whose licensing affect them if they don't distribute them? "
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792938#action_12792938 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-54:
------------------------------------
Sure - we've been saying category X can't be used since 1996. Abstract vs concrete has only been since 2004 or so. :)
You're still pushing for an abstract answer (if I understand your intent), rather it should be:
* "Category X - not allowed without Legal Affairs approval. "
* "In what type of situation would this be approved?"
* "It depends on the specific use case. Here are previously approved, and not approved examples. "
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792898#action_12792898 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-54:
------------------------------------
I don't think the Q&A here is right. We're not giving blanket approval of "LGPL licensed works in optional features that are not enabled by default", rather that's a criteria the Legal Affairs PMC considers on items.
We have a long history of not being able to be happy with the abstract statement even if we are happy with individual cases.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Sam Ruby (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12873440#action_12873440 ]
Sam Ruby commented on LEGAL-54:
-------------------------------
> * "Will the majority of users want to use my project without adding the optional components?
As is, wouldn't that preclude the use of C#?
http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html#head-cc4186e2c34505e5dddc5c9b5e40a655cd699e5c
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792903#action_12792903 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-54:
----------------------------------
Again, I disagree. The long history was in saying category X licenses couldn't be used at all. It is only fairly recently that the discussion and approval of using LGPL'd works in optional dependencies has come up and been approved. A good question for you is "Under what circumstances would you consider an optional dependency on an LGPL'd work to not be OK"? Since the LGPL is triggered by distribution I cannot think of any. Requiring everyone to have to come to legal-discuss or open a new Jira issue for each LGPL'd work seems pointless if the answer will always be the same.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should
discuss optional dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12793095#action_12793095 ]
Ralph Goers edited comment on LEGAL-54 at 12/21/09 6:34 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------
You sure are making this a pain. You chose to ignore Sam's email in which he proposed moving the section into resolved.html. Essentially, this issue simply is asking to do what Sam suggested in that email which I am quoting here.
>From http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u
Specifically, I'm talking about moving
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x
and
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#transition-examples
to
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
... while striking the words "transition and" from the text.
I'm open to wordsmithing suggestions, but the ideas expressed below
seem uncontroversial and have withstood the test of time. There
clearly will need to be text added to introduce the term "Category B",
and I'm inclined to expand the scope of that category from "reciprocal
licenses" to something that conveys the notion of licenses where
approval is contingent on usage. Perhaps someday LGPL could be moved
into such a category. I, for example, am untroubled by purely
optional dependencies on LGPL code.
----------------------------------------------------
What is interesting is that in a subsequent email you proposed changing the text to read
LGPL
The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license (a
category that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to
the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third
license criterion. Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be
included in Apache products, although they may be listed as system
requirements or distributed elsewhere as optional works.
To which Sam replied
+1. Good text.
Your next comment was that you applied the changes. But the above text is not what was committed.
was (Author: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com):
You sure are making this a pain. You chose to ignore Sam's email in which he proposed moving the section into resolved.html. Essentially, this issue simply is asking to do what Sam suggested in that email which I am quoting here.
>From http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u
Specifically, I'm talking about moving
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x
and
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#transition-examples
to
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
... while striking the words "transition and" from the text.
I'm open to wordsmithing suggestions, but the ideas expressed below
seem uncontroversial and have withstood the test of time. There
clearly will need to be text added to introduce the term "Category B",
and I'm inclined to expand the scope of that category from "reciprocal
licenses" to something that conveys the notion of licenses where
approval is contingent on usage. Perhaps someday LGPL could be moved
into such a category. I, for example, am untroubled by purely
optional dependencies on LGPL code.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12873508#action_12873508 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-54:
------------------------------------
Agreed, but the system + optional concepts need to very carefully work together.
How about the below, I've incorporated the #platform paragraph.
===============
Q. Does it matter what platform an Apache product is created to work with?
It does not matter, unless the terms for that platform affect the Apache product's licensing. For example, creating a product that runs on Windows or Java, uses a web service such as Google Services or Yahoo Search, or is a plugin for a product such as JBoss or JIRA is fine, whereas creating a Linux kernel module is not fine because the Apache product itself would have to be licensed under something other than the Apache License, version 2.0.
Note that this does not mean the platform code itself can be redistributed. That of course will depend on the licensing of said code. Also, if you have any doubts as to whether the licensing would affect the Apache code, we recommend that you check the legal-discuss@ archives to see if it has come up before, and if not email legal-discuss@ to find out.
Q. Can Apache projects rely on components under prohibited licenses if they don't distribute them?
As with the previous question on platforms, it doesn't matter unless the terms for that platform affect the Apache product's licensing.
Q. Can Apache projects rely on components whose licensing affect them if they don't distribute them?
Yes, as long as it is only for optional features, a project can provide the user with instructions on how
to obtain and install the non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required for
standard use of the project or for the project to achieve a desirable level of quality. The question to
ask yourself in this situation is:
* "Will the majority of users want to use my project without adding the optional components?
=================
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12873330#action_12873330 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-54:
----------------------------------
I like the way your answer is phrased very much. It makes it very clear how a project should evaluate their usage.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12873255#action_12873255 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-54:
------------------------------------
I'm grokking this better now, yes it took me a while :)
I don't like Sam's (or Cliff's) "Optional Add-ons" text. A more basic one based on your text:
---
Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses if they don't distribute them?
Yes, as long as it is only for optional features, a project can provide the user with instructions on how
to obtain and install the non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required for
standard use of the project or for the project to achieve a desirable level of quality. The question to
ask yourself in this situation is:
* "Will the majority of users want to use my project without adding the optional components?
---
Thoughts?
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12793076#action_12793076 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-54:
------------------------------------
>From the top of 3party.html:
"This document represented a proposed ASF policy that was very helpful in guiding the foundation for a number of years. The official version was derived from this draft and associated feedback. "
What's in 3party.html is not granting anything, it's merely a set of input for the PMC's decisions. resolved.html records those decisions. We have not made a general decision on LGPL beyond "you can't use it". We have made exceptions to that upon request. We could do more about linking those exceptions to allow people to know the kinds of things that might be considered, and as we see duplicated examples come up then we should consider making their use cases more abstract.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792821#action_12792821 ]
Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-54:
----------------------------------
I have to disagree. The way http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x currently reads leads people continue to believe that LGPL'd works cannot be used in any way by Apache projects. It makes more sense to me to include the question and answer suggested here rather than changing the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional
dependencies.
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792817#action_12792817 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-54:
------------------------------------
I'm wondering if we should resolve WONTFIX. We've not had a strong need to go to the point of trying to define optional use, though it is definitely a criteria we consider ourselves when approving an item and we need to start documenting that somehow.
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-54
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses.
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default.
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org