may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that started
this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira. i should
think that it would be possible to add another checkbox to allow
contributors to give explicit permission for dual licensing (ASL and
GPL).
(i can't resist adding a few comments but trust that people will
correct me if i go wrong...)
On 7/30/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elaborate a bit on what the
> > > MIT
> > > license specifically lacks to meet the terms?
> >
> > The parts that aren't in the ASL2, particularly in regards to
> > retaining the NOTICE file's notices.
>
> Hi Roy,
>
> A few mails ago you've said the GPL2 otoh would be fine, but that the GPL
> also lacks parts that are in the ASL2, if I understood you correctly (no
> explicit patent grant was the issue you raised, afair).
>
> Could you list the parts of the ASL2 are relevant for a license to be
> ASL2-compatible?
all of them :)
AIUI the term compatibility is used to mean whether it is possible to
create a work combining parts under the two particular licenses. so,
it's the interactions between the licensing terms which are the
question and so all clauses in each license are relevant.
IMHO the free software foundation's theory of implicit patent grants
being embedded in the GPL is quite novel. this makes is hard to
understand whether the law would allow a work to combine GPL and ASL2
licensed components. however, since the ASL2 is listed as incompatible
by the free software foundation, this should be respected ethically
even if it may turn out to be incorrect legally.
<snip>
> And as you've been kind
> to explain, ASL2 is quite a different beast from some other BSD-like
> licenses in various ways, for example in that it does not grant
> sublicensing rights to patents.
i'm a little confused...
the BSD license does not say anything about patents. though it gives
permission to make copies, it may be that the creator of the software
holds relevant patents. to use the software, you may need to obtain a
license.
the apache license addresses the patent question ("can i use this
software?") explicitly. you are granted a license to use the software
limited only by the termination clause.
AIUI the question of how far this license extends to derivative works
in general (whether they are distributed under the ASL2 or not) is
open to interpretation. however, the BSD license makes no promises of
any kind as far as patents are concerned.
as i mentioned above, the free software foundation believes that the
GPL contains implicit promises about patents and that these promises
make it impossible to create a combined work with ASL licensed
software. IMHO it's hard to understand what promises the creator of a
derivative work has to make with regard to the patents for the BSD
licensed portions of a work combining GPL and BSD licensed software.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
