Hi Matt, Yes that page does cause some confusion and it is quite understandable. Here are some sections from the Apache site that I think prove useful. The key thing to remember is that Apache is basically a patent/trademark protected BSD. This means the following:
- That you can essentially take the code and modify or re-license it as closed or open source as long as you attribute the original source code. The GPL is ok with the actual usage of the library for a code reusability and philosophy but the problem is actually with the patent protection that the Apache License affords. For this the GPL's stance on this is as follows. "Note that this is contrary to our previously stated belief that the GPL does forbid the continuing use of a GPL'd work by an entity that has claimed the work contains infringement of their own patented technology. Apparently, it is okay for the distribution and use to continue up until a judgment or injunction has been issued because the FSF does not believe a claim of patent infringement amounts to a restriction on the rights of others to redistribute, and the constraint on further restriction applies only to those rights listed within the GPL itself (copyright)." So this means that it is ok from a code reusability point of view until you have a litigation on the patents that your library or llrp.xsd may infringe upon (I hope this is highly unlikely). Also some other people from popular Apache projects also claim that it is not an issue (take it for what it is of course) and there are many that actually do so. One example I found that is not a forum post. http://pavlov.sourceforge.net/code-faq.html#Can+a+GPL+Project+use+Apache-Licensed+Modules%3F Also XML is enough of a gray area that it is unsure if it is considered binary library or source library. The GPL does allow the inclusion of binaries as long as they are not modified even if they are closed source (such as drivers etc). There is also a section on applying exceptions to GPL provided you are the copyright holder to this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs And finally if all of this isn't enough the easiest way to get around this is to release your Library under LGPL V3. This will pretty easily solve the issue as there is not gray area at all. I know you mentioned Wireshark compatibility and I am not sure of their license but if it follows this chart and has verbage of GPL V2 or later then it is compatible with LGPL V3 libraries (in your case the dissectors). http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq And also since this discussion has reached such a level of detail I need to invoke the standard OSS disclaimer. I am not a lawyer (nor ever desire to be one) and all the information presented above is strictly from my research and past involvement in contributing and championing open source in larger commercial companies. I am thankfully working for a company that is open source friendly so I don't need to worry about these things anymore. So i hope this mini-book helped. If you have any other questions please feel free to ping me. I will definitely try to write less in the future. Prasith Matt Poduska wrote: > My understanding is that Apache licensed source cannot be included in a > GPLv2 project: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > Maybe this is something I just need to bring up with the WireShark > community, but I have doubts that they will allow the inclusion of an Apache > licensed file in their source tree. > > It also seems a bit odd that a source file generated directly from > llrpdef.xml would not need to carry the Apache license. Compilers operating > on Apache licensed source code produces Apache licensed binaries; XSL > transforms (or a Python script in my case) operating on Apache licensed > "source" like llrpdef.xml should also produce Apache licensed material. If > this were not the case, everyone would be creating > scripts/compilers/transforms to "launder" source code into any license they > desire. > > Have I misinterpreted these licenses? > > - Matt > > > >> From: Prasith Govin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: LLRP Toolkit Development List >> <[email protected]> >> To: LLRP Toolkit Development List >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [ltk-d] WireShark/LLRP License >> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:48:39 -0400 >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> I have some experience with open source licensing and contributed to the >> group for coming up with the initial licensing scheme. We decided to go >> with Apache 2.0 because of its friendliness to both commercial and open >> source efforts. It also offers some good protection against general >> patents and has a very nice as-is (no warranty) clause for code use and >> proliferation. >> >> You can find the reasoning and discussion surrounding this on a forum >> post (this was before the mailing list was setup). >> http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1736466&forum_id=689820 >> >> I also found a very good article on using XML with LGPL (also on the >> forums) >> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200202/msg01411.html >> >> Now if you read through all that your head should be spinning so I will >> try to summarize. The main problem with LGPL (or GPL) is when another >> project tries to derive something out of it. XML is a very gray area in >> this. So let's say you were the one to contribute the XSD's and we were >> going to build our code generators off it then we could have a potential >> problem. This can still be argued that this is not a derived work but >> let's just play it safe and say it does. >> >> But what you are suggesting is actually the opposite and very much a >> valid use of the Apache 2.0 license. You are actually using the XSD's >> as a base library and the nice thing about Apache is that it is >> compatible with GPL (and derivatives) and even if it wasn't an XSD and >> plain old code you could still use it. >> >> So I don't see any implications with using Apache in your LGPL licensed >> code. The only thing you need to make sure is that you are preserving >> all Apache license verbage on the xml file and/or ship a >> apachelicense.txt file with your code basically copying the license. >> The guidelines to apply can be found here. >> >> I hope that helps and if you have any other questions please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Prasith >> >> PS: BTW are you considering going to LGPL V3? It is even friendlier >> with Apache compatibility. >> >> >> >> >> Matt Poduska wrote: >> >>> I'm curious if anyone can comment on possible issues regarding the >>> >> conflict >> >>> between the licenses applied to the WireShark source and the LLRP >>> >> toolkit's >> >>> llrpdef.xml? It seems to me that the Apache 2.0 license is not >>> >> compatible >> >>> with the GPL v2.0, so including llrpdef.xml in the WireShark source >>> distribution (for compile-time generation of the LLRP parser validation >>> structures) could be a problem. >>> >>> If I generate source from llrpdef.xml, does that source inherit the >>> >> Apache >> >>> 2.0 license? >>> >>> - Matt Poduska >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >>> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
