Title: Batik's use of Rhino (MPL/NPL issue)
Some corporate entities (actually, their legal and IP departments) are very, very resistant to any *PL licenses.  It would be bad to "sneak" them through inside an Apache license.  Either something is covered under Apache 2.0, or it isn't.
 
I would think this needs to be made very visible in the Apache license...or that any Apache offerings that embed NPL/MPL need to have a separate license and or a big red asterisk next to them.
 
Thoughts?
 


From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 8/21/2005 11:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: Batik's use of Rhino (MPL/NPL issue)

So far this is still somewhat informal since the board meeting minutes
are not yet available but as far as I know the NPL/MPL resolution below
has passed. So, Batik can continue to use Rhino. Batik Devs and all
members of the XML Graphics PMC should read the resolution below.

I'm currently unsure about what the mention of the NOTICE file means in
our case, but I don't think any additional entries in the NOTICE file
are necessary. At least, I have found nothing that would have to go in
there. WDYT?

---

B. Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables

       WHEREAS, some Project Management Committees (PMCs) within
       The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expect to better serve
       their mission through the use and redistribution of the 
       executable form of existing source code licensed under the
       Mozilla Public License (MPL) or Netscape Public License (NPL);
       and

       WHEREAS, it is the ASF's interpretation that the MPL and NPL
       licenses permit distribution of such executables under the
       terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0, provided the terms
       applicable to the associated source code have been complied
       with and that appropriate entries made in the ASF
       distribution's NOTICE file; and

       WHEREAS, the current ASF licensing policy discourages the
       distribution of intellectual property by the ASF under terms
       beyond those stated in the Apache License, Version 2.0.

       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that PMCs may use and
       redistribute the executable form of existing source code
       licensed under the MPL 1.0, MPL 1.1, NPL 1.0, or NPL 1.1;
       and be it further

       RESOLVED, that PMCs must ensure such redistribution only
       occurs after appropriate entries have been made in the ASF
       distribution's NOTICE file and only if the PMC finds that
       the MPL/NPL terms applicable to the associated source code
       appear to have been satisfied.

---

If there are any questions, please direct them to legal-discuss@ or to
me and I'll try to help.

Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to