Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding?
The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"...
On Jul 29, 2005, at 12:41 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing
but intentional obstruction from the FSF. Think about that.
Roy,
I have thought about that, and, speaking for myself, I'd like to
thank you
for being helpful for the past ten years. I would appreciate it
very much
if
you'd continue being helpful, and continue showing respect for your
fellow
developers, as that is one of the things Apache is about[1] and one of
things I
find interesting about it.
I have some trouble understanding the sublicensing provision of the
Apache
license v2, and I believe you were one of the persons drafting it, so
I hope you
can help me understand it better.
From ASL2:
[...]
"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
Object form,
made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice
that is
included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the
Appendix below).
[...]
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright
license to
reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly
perform,
sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in
Source or
Object form.
I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source
form and
distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2
triple license (like Mozilla)
on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org.
Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitely
wants to
allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different
license, to
allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case
it's the GPL,
so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in
some of their
proprietary products, for example,
Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive,
i.e. to apply to
all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement
to carry
around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed
GPL2/ASL2 version
on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not
carry the additional
ASL around when they redistribute further.
The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right,
I live in
Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents,
I have my own
license to use, and those that received the Works from me are
protected by the
liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite
the termination
provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL
does not know the
concept of patent termination.
Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#what-is-apache-about
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
