RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? In normal cases - yes as it is in the interest of the ASF community and codebase long term. And we are in it for the long term. However if you go outside the CLA and the normal oversight process and that is what causes the issue; no - most propably. I doubt it. I really doubt it. Thats OK. Nobody expects you to be a lemming. In fact the lemming rates in the ASF are propably below national average. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
-Original Message- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2004 01:21 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ?? On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? In normal cases - yes as it is in the interest of the ASF community and codebase long term. And we are in it for the long term. However if you go outside the CLA and the normal oversight process and that is what causes the issue; no - most propably. Are here is the rub. The normal oversight process is closely tied to the policies and procedures on the ground. Things like release procedures, release manager, etc. We have several statements from members of the board that policies and procedures established at the PMC level are in effect null and void. Given a scenario where a challenge occurs, the issue comes down to an arbitrary decision by the board to stand behind the individual, or, to do nothing and claim that doing nothing is in the interest of the foundation. Cynical? Maybe .. but at least this discussion has established some reference points concerning what is real and what is imaginary. Cheers, Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html The Jini technology is going Open Source and I think that is great, and even though I tried hard, it will not be under a ASL2.0 license, most likely the MIT license. Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher value than the patent right issue. Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss?? Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing. Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) about that the licensing is incompatible... So, Mr Fleury, please drop the following from your distribution (incl non-apache); * log4j * tomcat * jetty * beanshell * jasper * hsqldb * mx4j and on and on and on... In my opinion (and people here knows I'm the kind who confronts, that's no secret) throw that at JBoss + FSF and see the reaction. Nice Christmas present. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html The Jini technology is going Open Source and I think that is great, and even though I tried hard, it will not be under a ASL2.0 license, most likely the MIT license. I always thought the MIT licence was just the same as the BSD 1.1 licence. The GNU page lists a couple under that name (X11 License and Expat License). It'd be interesting to know why the MIT licence in particular is desired, I thought it was quite out of fashion nowadays. Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss?? Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing. Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) about that the licensing is incompatible... From our point of view, ASL licenced code may be used in such products, so whether the FSF might have an issue or not with them is not in our realm of interest. I'm also pretty sure that we're not looking for pay back with the same coins. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: snip Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher value than the patent right issue. in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously damage an open source project would only have to target individual european release managers using the most pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous. happy christmas, one and all! - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 14:15, robert burrell donkin dijo: On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: snip Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher value than the patent right issue. in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously damage an open source project would only have to target individual european release managers using the most pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous. As a workaround we can give release manager roles to people in countries where this problems does not exists at all. ;-) happy christmas, one and all! +1 Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany. pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to help here. And we contineously try to improve this. Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Sure - the ASF itself and its Directors may end up in the hot seat - but that is exactly what we are here for ;-) Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On 21.12.2004, at 21:15, robert burrell donkin wrote: by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously damage an open source project would only have to target individual european release managers using the most pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous. ...yeah, we already got our prisoner suits... :) http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day1/abn http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day2/abr http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day2/acw Cheers, Erik Honestly, isn't the release manager protected in some way? Distributions are basically released by the ASF (as a legal entity) not the release manager himself and furthermore the PMC has to vote on a release; the RM is only the one doing the gruntwork, so I'd guess we're fine here. This doesn't apply to any other private or OSS engagements of course... happy christmas, one and all! - robert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
-Original Message- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 21:59 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ?? On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany. pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to help here. And we contineously try to improve this. Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. Why do you say things like this? Do you fail to understand this is the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo: Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. Why not Stephen? In all stuff related to the ASF I guess the answer is a clear yes as whatever other ASF committer or member. Why you doubt it? AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except Stephen ;-) I truly believe we can have diferences including diferent POVs and hard discussions this is normal in every community, even inside families. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 04:59, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. I don't claim to know anything about the European sw patent issue, but assuming that Robert is fairly well informed, the situation would become; ASF can not issue a statement superceding the law, esp not criminal law, no matter how much it wants to take blame in the criminal act. Worst thing that could happen would be that both are charged, and if found guilty ASF slapped with a hefty fine, which it can't pay, which may lead to confiscation of the physical assets in Europe and possibly restriction on how it is allowed to do business there. I thought that common sense would finally come to the whole sw patent issue in europe, and didn't bother to keep abreast of the development. Scary. Indeed. I feel for you guys. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 05:23, Scott Sanders wrote: On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Why do you say things like this? Do you fail to understand this is the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF. He is in a bad mood. He is leaving Europe shortly (pre-empting the Patent issue) and will be missing the food, cigars and cafes he enjoyed in Paris over the last few years. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2004, 20:15 + schrieb robert burrell donkin: in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. ... I don't think so. The winds are changing and blowing into the faces of those who are in favour of software patents. Unfortunately the European Council is still amongs those - in contrary to most European parliaments. I do hope that the council will be unable to enforce its directive on software patents: As of today they suffered a heavy defeat when they wanted to silently pass the directive without discussion in the Agriculture and Fisheries (!) configuration: Poland's representative refused to wave through the council's directive without discussion. This caused the case to be taken off from the agenda. However, other ministers in the council did not have that courage and would have passed the guideline because they simply did not want to blame the Netherlands which have the council's presidentship at present. Now the blame is on themselves. Everything is open again: Next year Luxembourg will have the presidentship, and one might wonder whether they want to carry on with this stuff. The change in presidentship might offer a change for the European goverments to start listening to their parliaments and abandon any further tries to enforce software patents. Even if the European Council manages to pass the directive there is still the European Parliament which has already proven to be against software patents and could cancel the directive. All in all, I am quite optimistic for 2005. Best regards Rainer Klute Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH Dipl.-Inform. Rainer Klute E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824 D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423 Softwarepatente verhindern: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Dec 21, 2004, at 4:23 PM, Scott Sanders wrote: On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. Why do you say things like this? Do you fail to understand this is the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF. s/Do// -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 03:52 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss?? Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing. Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) about that the licensing is incompatible... So, Mr Fleury, please drop the following from your distribution (incl non-apache); * log4j * tomcat * jetty * beanshell * jasper * hsqldb * mx4j and on and on and on... It's not for us to decide for projectx whether they deem ASF-2.0 licensed software to be incompatible with their (L)GPL'ed code or not. The people that release ASF 2.0 licensed software don't need to care about this, because the problem is not the ASF 2.0 license but another (in this case (L)GPL) which states that the result must be licensed again under this other license (in this case (L)GPL. In other words: The ASF IMHO does not need to care. Because the ASF 2.0 is not violated. In my opinion (and people here knows I'm the kind who confronts, that's no secret) throw that at JBoss + FSF and see the reaction. Nice Christmas present. If this gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over, go ahead and tell them... Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development What is more important to you... [ ] Product Security or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo: AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except Stephen ;-) You don't seem to have access to the purple files... Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development What is more important to you... [ ] Product Security or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 17:12, Henning Schmiedehausen dijo: On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo: AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except Stephen ;-) You don't seem to have access to the purple files... Please! we don't need that! ;-) Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
Niclas Hedhman wrote: Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ?? http://www.apache.org/licenses/ http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
Niclas Hedhman wrote: ... Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ?? http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Monday 20 December 2004 23:54, Joshua Slive wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ?? http://www.apache.org/licenses/ http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html thanks!!! -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Monday 20 December 2004 23:54, Joshua Slive wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ?? http://www.apache.org/licenses/ http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html thanks!!! Of far more interest I think: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses The list of incompatible licences is not a small one. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
