[License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

[Ralph Goers]

Larry,  you are welcome.  However, the other link you forwarded [1] has a section named "Can I write proprietary code that links to a shared library that's open source?”.  It basically answers the very question you are asking - namely, that there are cases where you cannot take code written under the Apache License, combine it with code licensed under the GPL (regardless of whether the code is explicitly included or only dynamically linked via a Java JAR file) and then distribute that under a proprietary license. Furthermore, links such as this [2] by the FSF explicitly call out what their position is on how works are combined even when using dynamic linking - once bound together the whole aggregation needs to abide by the terms of the license, not just the included work.

To me, the fundamental purpose of the Apache license is to allow anyone to do whatever they want with the software, including modifying it and including it in their proprietary product with no requirements to do so.  If an Apache project were to directly or indirectly require software that uses a license that requires anyone to meet certain requirements in order to create and distribute their software under whatever license they choose that project would not be meeting the goals of the ASF.

Ralph


[1] - http://opensource.org/faq#linking-proprietary-code <http://opensource.org/faq#linking-proprietary-code>
[2] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html>
> On May 20, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
>>> My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0" 
>>> is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
>>> I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. 
> 
> Larry Rosen suggested: 
>> The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: "Of course. All FOSS licenses 
>> are compatible for aggregations.”
> 
> Ralph Goers then responded:
>> The fundamental problem here is that it seems that most of the rest of us
>> disagree completely with this statement. I know I do. Yes, I am not an attorney,
>> but I don’t need to be to express that the many conversations I have had
>> with attorneys for the companies I have worked for and that their (possibly
>> incorrect) opinions are the reason why we would prefer to be overly conservative.
> 
> Thank you Ralph!
> 
> That is EXACTLY the reason why we moved this conversation to legal-discuss at apache.org, which is a public email list that anyone can read and copy. I'm now also copying license-discuss at opensource.org and the European Legal Network <ftf-legal at fsfeurope.org>.  I'm hoping for responses from attorneys. I'm fully prepared to ride my horse into the sunset if other attorneys tell me I'm inventing copyright law.
> 
> I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys say something supportive.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers at dslextreme.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:18 PM
> To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe at apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help at apache.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150520/9675d9fe/attachment.html>