Hi all!
I have some questions after reading
http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/
...my guess is that they'll all be FAQs...
Goals ----- > 4. Compatible with other licenses
Q: The big question of course: is this new license LPGL and/or GPL-compatible? Has the FSF been asked to comment on that yet? Have they made any kind of statement? Will there be?
A: Eben Moglen has submitted some comments on the draft on behalf of the FSF. The FSF believes the current section 5 is incompatible with the GPL, but there is some work being done on that section so that might be fixed. Furthermore, they've indicated they'll be taking (further) compatibility between ASL and GPL into account while drafting GPL version 3. The complete message is at:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=69
License ------- > 4. Contributor Grant of License. Subject to the terms and conditions > of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You:
Q: IIUC, the current license is an agreement between the ASF and "the rest of the world". This seems like an agreement between Contributors and "the rest of the world". Doesn't that affect the ability of the ASF to protect its members from being sued? If so, how?
A: none yet.
> C. A Contribution is "submitted" when any form of electronic, > verbal, or written communication is sent to the Licensor, > including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing > lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems > that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose > of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication > that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by > the Contributor as "Not a Contribution."
Q: I wonder...what if a contributor sends a patch to a committer via private e-mail, or posts it in a comment on a weblog, or something similar? Does this clause mean that we should be avoiding such things?
A: yes.
> (c) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that You changed the files.
Q: IIUC this means that if you fork source code and change it, there should be a statement like "This file modified by Bla-Blah, Inc. from the ASF ones". Perhaps it would be good to have an example of a "prominent notice" in the appendix?
A: none yet.
Q: Also, does this mean that any change committed to the ASF CVS must include notices like this? That seems like a nightmare to ensure!
A: yes, it does.
Q: Would a cvs-generated changelog be appropriate?
A: none yet.
> You may add Your own copyright statement to such modifications and > may provide (sublicense) additional or different license terms and > conditions for use, reproduction, distribution or further > modification of Your modifications, or for the Derivative Work as > a whole, provided that the sublicense complies with the conditions > stated in this License.
Q: an example of this would also be nice. I believe this says I may copy the apache license, change its name, add a few clauses about limiting distribution outside the US (for example), assume liability, call it the "Bla-Bla, Inc. Open Source License", and distribute ASF-created code under that license. Is that correct?
A: Nope. this says that you may add a copyright notice and additional license terms to the modified files, for example "This changed file copyright Leo Simons and licensed under the GPL". That does not mean you have the right to modify the Apache license itself. That's not necessary for this purpose. You can include your own license document and refer to the Apache license in there.
thanks!
- Leo Simons
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
