RE: AW: License proposal

Thanks Roger,

Here's the original article the /. page is talking about:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.poi.devel/5900

The relevant snippet is this:
-----------------------------------------
Under no circumstances can any LGPL code be used as it would require us to
LGPL our code per section 6 of the LGPL license and the statement I received
from the Free Software Foundation's Dave Turner (the man behind
licensing <at> fsf.org):

"
Me:
> Brett Smith referred me to you regarding a question regarding the Lesser
Gnu
> Public License (LGPL) in regards to Java.  It is the interpretation of
most
> of the open/free software communities that the use of a "jar" file by a
> piece of software linked via a Java "import" statement does not bind the
> linking work under the terms of the LGPL.  The Apache Software Foundation,
> presently takes a more conservative view and thus projects of the ASF are
> not allowed to link/distribute LGPL programs into Java projects of the
> foundation.

DT:
This sort of linking falls under section 6 of the LGPL.
"
-----------------------------------------

What FSF's Dave Turner appears to be saying then is that when a Java program
includes a jar file by doing an import statement, if the contents of that
.jar file are LGPL'd, then the Java program falls under section 6 of LGPL.
So the question then, is "exactly what does Section 6 of the LGPL require?"
Does it just mean that someone has to a) make the Barracuda stuff available
with their binaries? And b) provide the ability for people to plug their
oown version of Barracuda in?

I'd enjoy hearing from the ObjectWEb guys on this, as they've probably given
it some thought...
----------------------------------------------
Christian Cryder
Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
----------------------------------------------
"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Roger C. Soares
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
>
>
> There was a discussion on slashdot about the LGPL being iqual to GPL for
> java code:
>
> http://slashdot.org/developers/03/07/17/2257224.shtml
>
> Cheers,
> Roger.
>
> --
> Christian Cryder wrote:
>
> >Just an additional comment...
> >
> >The text of the LGPL can be found here:
> >http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php
> >The text of the BSD license can be found here:
> >http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> >
> >I was originally thinking of a dual license, using both LGPL and
> BSD. One of
> >the ObjectWeb guys commented on this, and I found his reply helpful...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Christian,
> >>
> >>I don't quite understand what your intention is wrt licensing.
> >>You may technically release Barracuda under both BSD and LGPL.  You
> >>probably have a good reason,  which I'm not aware of, to
> investigate this
> >>possibility. The thing is, BSD is so permissive, anybody has
> the right to
> >>license derivative works of BSD'ed software under another license,
> >>including LGPL. On the other hand, LGPL requires that
> derivative works be
> >>distributed under an LGPL-compatible license, which BSD is not.
> >>This means that BSD software does not need to be licensed under LGPL,
> >>since the rights granted by BSD are a superset of those given by LGPL.
> >>Conversely, modifications in LGPL software cannot be contributed to the
> >>
> >>
> >BSD
> >
> >
> >>version, because they are required to remain under LGPL.
> >>
> >>The BSD license is distinct from the Apache Public License. A main
> >>difference is that if you opt for the BSD, you remain the owner of all
> >>copyrights, whereas if you chose APL, you transfer the copyrights to the
> >>Apache Software Foundation. This latter option is not appropriate
> >>in your case.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So from my perspective, we definitely want the copyright
> ownership to stay
> >with the original authors (that keeps everything protected from any one
> >group co-opting the project in a direction that might not be
> beneficial to
> >everyone else). So, both LGPL and BSD would fit that bill,
> whereas something
> >like Apache Public License would not.
> >
> >The second thing we want to require is for extensions and
> improvements to be
> >submitted back to the community. LGPL requires this, at least in
> the sense
> >that it requires the source for any derived works to be made
> available under
> >the same terms.
> >
> >The only real question I have about LGPL centers on "derivative
> works." As I
> >read the license, if you extend of modify Barracuda, you would
> need to make
> >those changes available under LGPL as well.
> >
> >-- (LGPL snippet) --
> >2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any
> portion of it,
> >thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such
> >modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,
> provided that you
> >also meet all of these conditions:
> >
> >    a) The modified work must itself be a software library.
> >
> >    b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent
> notices stating
> >that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> >
> >    c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
> charge to
> >all third parties under the terms of this License.
> >--------------------
> >
> >So my question is: what about derived work where you simply _extend_ the
> >underlying library classes? For instance, what if someone
> creates their own
> >version of the ApplicationGateway? If they change the class itself, then
> >that clearly constitutes a derivative work. But what if they
> merely extend
> >it? I am tempted to say that's a derivative work as well, except for the
> >fact that there are many places in Barracuda which are designed to be
> >extended by the user.
> >
> >For instance, what about things like abstract classes (think
> event handlers,
> >in particular) that MUST be extended in the end user
> application. In a case
> >like this, I certainly DONT think that extending/implementing a Barracuda
> >event handler constitutes creating a derivative work; if it did, then
> >section c could be construed to mean any app which uses Barracuda must
> >itself be licensed under LGPL.
> >
> >SO...I'd like some input on the whole derivative work thing...is there
> >anyone who has done real legal analysis of LGPL implications? My question
> >here really boils down to "what constitutes a derivative work?"
> Especially
> >in an OO language like Java where you are designing things to be
> extended.
> >Maybe the answer is that "as long as your class simply _extends_ an LGPL
> >class, you are fine"...I'm ok with that. But does the LGPL
> license say that?
> >Or does it say more than that?
> >
> >Perhaps someone at ObjectWeb can comment on this (Christophe, Francois,
> >Matthieu, Alfred?)
> >
> >Christian
> >----------------------------------------------
> >Christian Cryder
> >Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
> >Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
> >----------------------------------------------
> >"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: [email protected]
> >>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Thelmo Loisio
> >>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:40 PM
> >>To: [email protected]
> >>Subject: Re: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 13:34, Madl Alfred wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>LGPL is "sticky" where BSD is not. Means: LGPL code ALWAYS has to stay
> >>>LGPL. No closed source derivations are allowed of LGPL code. BSD allows
> >>>closed source forking (like IBM or Sun are doing with Apache and Tomcat
> >>>which are based on the Apache license which also allows that). I think
> >>>this is the main difference...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That could prevent some private (company) to found the development of
> >>the project.
> >>
> >>I don't know how the license issue was addressed by two projects on OW
> >>(ASM and JOTM) which was recently licensed under BSD license to make
> >>them compatible with the Apache foundation. I even don't know which was
> >>their license before.
> >>
> >>But this is the only real issue. If it possible, desirable or
> >>undesirable to have this opportunity.
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>--
> >>Thelmo
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Barracuda mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Barracuda mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda