[License-review] ESA-PL Weak 2.3
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Wed Oct 30 01:21:48 UTC 2019
I am puzzled by Section 3.1 of the Weak 2.3 license. Can a Licensor
choose what license will be used for their distribution? If I receive
code under the ESA-PL Weak Copyleft license, can I sublicense it under
the GPLv3? If that's true, doesn't that mean that every Contribution was
licensed under at least four licenses, the ESA-PL Weak, ESA-PL Strong,
GPLv2 (and later versions) and CeCill v2 (and later versions)?
In Section 3.2.1 of the Weak and Strong licenses you use the term
"extensions of the Software." How will the word "extensions" be
interpreted? When is something an "extension of the Software" and not an
External Modules or System Libraries? Is "extension" a legal or software
term of art?
In the same section it's not clear whether "in or on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium" is an additional limitation on "such as
to form a larger program." In other words, if a separate work is
combined with the Software to form a larger program, but it's not in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, does that mean the
license does not apply? (I suspect the wording "in or on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium" is altogether unnecessary).
Pamela S. Chestek
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
On 5/6/18 9:47 AM, Carsten Gerlach wrote:
> On 03.03.2018 01:18, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> 3.1 Copyleft Clause.
>> All Distribution of the Software and/or Modifications, as Source Code or
>> Object Code, must be, as a whole, either under (a) the terms of this
>> License or the ESA-PL Strong Copyleft license *v2.2* or (b) any later
>> version of these Licenses unless the Software is expressly Distributed
>> only under a specific version of the License by a Contributor or (c) the
>> terms of a compatible license as listed in Appendix A to this License.
>> Any obligation in this License to Distribute under the terms of this
>> License, in particular as set out in Sec. 3.2, shall be construed as
>> referring to “this License or a compatible license”.
>> Do you really mean v2.3 here?
> Yes, it should read v2.3.
>> 3.2.4 _Combinations_. You may create a Modification (the “Combination”)
>> by combining or linking the Software or Modifications thereof (the
>> “Covered Code”) with additional code or software (the “External Code”)
>> not governed by the terms of this License and Distribute the Combination
>> - in Object Code form under any license terms, and/or
>> - *in Source Code form the External Code’s Source Code* under any
>> license terms
>> and the Covered Code’s Source Code under this License,
>> It would read better as "in Source Code form *with *the External Code’s
>> Source Code under any license terms"
> Yes, I agree.
> Kind regards, Carsten
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-review