Classic
LOL! http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321 -jon -- StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment 314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco http://studioz.tv/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Action items now or after board meeting?
Sam, Noel, everyone.. With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that we had indeed received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs to be made more clear somewhere. If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see no record of this on their website. If they issues a separate license for the ASF, then I would expect the board to have a copy of this and I would be very concerned about what limitations it might place on users of ASF software. I can't speak for dnsjava but the mm.mysql position is this.. the old mm.mysql driver is released under LGPL, when we removed this driver last time this issue came up Mark Matthews, then copyrightholder and licensor, contacted me and told me that as far as he was concerned our use of this library was consistent with LGPL (there is no compile time dependance on the copyright material, only on the JDBC contract) and was in fact the kind of use he'd intended to allow by choosing LGPL over GPL. The driver has been moved to MySQL and has become the MySQL connector-J, who's licence as distributed publicly is GPL and so we can't upgrade. Period. MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any more, and until then the last release of the mm.mysql under LGPL is the only one we can use. If MySQL did contact me regarding a specific Apache licence I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. If it would help I can fw my correspondance with Mark to the board for the record. d.
Re: Action items now or after board meeting?
Danny Angus wrote: With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that we had indeed received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs to be made more clear somewhere. If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see no record of this on their website. If they issues a separate license for the ASF, then I would expect the board to have a copy of this and I would be very concerned about what limitations it might place on users of ASF software. I can't speak for dnsjava but the mm.mysql position is this.. the old mm.mysql driver is released under LGPL, when we removed this driver last time this issue came up Mark Matthews, then copyrightholder and licensor, contacted me and told me that as far as he was concerned our use of this library was consistent with LGPL (there is no compile time dependance on the copyright material, only on the JDBC contract) and was in fact the kind of use he'd intended to allow by choosing LGPL over GPL. It is not clear that the license he chose was consistent with his intentions. The driver has been moved to MySQL and has become the MySQL connector-J, who's licence as distributed publicly is GPL and so we can't upgrade. Period. MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any more, and until then the last release of the mm.mysql under LGPL is the only one we can use. If MySQL did contact me regarding a specific Apache licence I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. The net affect of such a license would be that people who receive the software from us would have significantly less restrictions placed on what they could do with it than if they received these same bytes from the original source. If it would help I can fw my correspondance with Mark to the board for the record. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Licensing again.
It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members are the legal *owners* of the software that is available under the Apache Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one or more projects. It seems perfectly reasonable that decisions on the license under which that software is licensed should be made by the people that own it. I'm curious. What is the legal basis for this claim of ownership? /Larry Rosen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Action items now or after board meeting?
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:46, Sam Ruby wrote: MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any more, and until then the last release of the mm.mysql under LGPL is the only one we can use. If MySQL did contact me regarding a specific Apache licence I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. The net affect of such a license would be that people who receive the software from us would have significantly less restrictions placed on what they could do with it than if they received these same bytes from the original source. This is not necessarily true. The most likely scenario is that the exception is just made for apache, not for people using apache, that wish to customize that part it is concerning (unless they contribute back of course..). Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing again.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I've never heard this other interperatation outside of the ASF. I'll put more research into the issue and get back to you. I know that all of the developers that use LGPL that I know of think that the jar binaries can be used with no problem at all in any type of code, including ASF. If it's not the case, we should IMHO help them be aware that it's not the case. Or at the very least until the ASF changes its unique interperetation, just ask the authors for a disclaimer *like* (but not exactly like) on the CLASSPATH project (which is GPL). Honestly I'm not exactly sure under the ASF interperatation what the difference between GPL or LGPL is. (This is why I find this interperation so doubtful) While some authors will probably be like What's the point, thats why its LGPL? some will probably cooperate. There is a clear difference between LGPL and GPL for languages which have a clearly defined concept of link. Languages such as C. Classpath is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License with the following special exception. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Define link. If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already seen the following: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442 http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641503 -Andy - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing again.
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote: Define link. If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already seen the following: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442 http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641503 Based on that the rule should be : We cannot use anything that causes the ASF to change their license at any point AND doesn't change the license of any of the projects using the software in any way they want. (extending, rewriting), without a single exception. That would have stopped me from putting any time in looking at other ways to solve this problem :) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Classic
Still there.. On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:52:34AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Has it been taken offline? I was looking at it earlier, and can't now. Anyone have a copy? I'd like to keep one. geir On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 03:00 AM, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: LOL! http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321 -jon -- StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment 314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco http://studioz.tv/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-956-2604(w) Adeptra, Inc. 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 8742 1600 Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 8742 2649 414 Chiswick High Street email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] London W4 5TLWeb: http://www.orbisuk.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing again.
On 10/2/03 4:05 Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members are the legal *owners* of the software that is available under the Apache Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one or more projects. It seems perfectly reasonable that decisions on the license under which that software is licensed should be made by the people that own it. I'm curious. What is the legal basis for this claim of ownership? The fact that each contributor, prior access to our CVS repository, signs a paper saying that for whatever goes in CVS, he assigns copyright and ownership of the code to the ASF... No more no less than what any random employee of a software company does with his employer... Pier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing again.
Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no longer open source (by OSD anyway)? This is a strange discussion thread. On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 12:36, Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/2/03 4:05 Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members are the legal *owners* of the software that is available under the Apache Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one or more projects. It seems perfectly reasonable that decisions on the license under which that software is licensed should be made by the people that own it. I'm curious. What is the legal basis for this claim of ownership? The fact that each contributor, prior access to our CVS repository, signs a paper saying that for whatever goes in CVS, he assigns copyright and ownership of the code to the ASF... No more no less than what any random employee of a software company does with his employer... Pier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Action items now or after board meeting?
I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not. The net affect of such a license would be that people who receive the software from us would have significantly less restrictions placed on what they could do with it than if they received these same bytes from the original source. This is not necessarily true. The most likely scenario is that the exception is just made for apache, not for people using apache, that wish to customize that part it is concerning (unless they contribute back of course..). Exactly the kind of opposing interpretations I would rather not take responsibility for. (PS I broke my mail server today, ha ha, so I missed Sam's post) d.
Re: Licensing again.
No there are plenty of works derived from Apache projects. Apache code may be freely modified or redistributed, but as per the Apache license: The end-user documentation included with [redistributions of Apache code], if any, must include the following acknowlegement: This product includes software developed by the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). Alternately, this acknowlegement may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowlegements normally appear. The fact that Apache code has an owner (the ASF membership) and a copyright does not exclude it from having an open-source license. In fact, if the code did not have an owner, the license would be exceedingly difficult to defend. - Morgan --- Timothy Halloran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no longer open source (by OSD anyway)? This is a strange discussion thread. On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 12:36, Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/2/03 4:05 Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members are the legal *owners* of the software that is available under the Apache Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one or more projects. It seems perfectly reasonable that decisions on the license under which that software is licensed should be made by the people that own it. I'm curious. What is the legal basis for this claim of ownership? The fact that each contributor, prior access to our CVS repository, signs a paper saying that for whatever goes in CVS, he assigns copyright and ownership of the code to the ASF... No more no less than what any random employee of a software company does with his employer... Pier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing again.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Timothy Halloran wrote: Date: 10 Feb 2003 13:43:24 -0500 From: Timothy Halloran [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Licensing again. Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no longer open source (by OSD anyway)? People who *use* Apache code are free to use it in any way they want (subject, of course, to the Apache license requirements). That means that they can incorporate GPL/LGPL code on their own -- no problems. The user of Apache software can even redistribute Apache+GPL code in a package if they want -- nothing has changed there. The issue at hand for Apache is what are the license terms that cover the code that Apache *itself* distributes? Users of Apache code, quite naturally, will assume that the Apache Software License covers *all* the code in that distribution. That assumption is violated when a GPL/LGPL package is included, and this matters a *lot* to organizations that, for whatever policy reasons, choose not to utilize GPL/LGPL code. Craig McClanahan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing again.
Martin van den Bemt wrote: On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote: Define link. If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already seen the following: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442 http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641503 Based on that the rule should be : We cannot use anything that causes the ASF to change their license at any point AND doesn't change the license of any of the projects using the software in any way they want. (extending, rewriting), without a single exception. That would have stopped me from putting any time in looking at other ways to solve this problem :) Ahh, like the sun licenses too? ;-) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
