Legal Discuss
  1. Legal Discuss
  2. LEGAL-81

Is it ok/meaningful to have a dependency licensed as ASL just for Apache Software Foundation, but LGPL for anyone else?

    Details

    • Type: Question Question
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      We are in the process of setting up Apache Isis into the incubator (the code prior to Apache being called the Naked Objects Framework and sister projects).

      I've now realized that one of the modules has a small dependency on code that has an LGPL license (a small Javascript file) that would be part of the distribution. Since my understanding was that LGPL is not ASL 2 compatible, I contacted the developer about whether he might consider moving to ASL. His response was to grant permission as follows:

      begin
      Yes, I authorize "NO framework and your sister projects accepted [2] into the Apache incubator" to use my XMLHttpRequest.js library (available at the http://code.google.com/p/xmlhttprequest/ and currently licensed under LGPL) with the ASL license.

      [2] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IsisProposal.
      end

      So, my question is: is this sufficient for us?

      Many thanks,
      Dan Haywood

        Activity

        Hide
        Henri Yandell added a comment -

        Closing as ISIS-97 replaced this code.

        Show
        Henri Yandell added a comment - Closing as ISIS-97 replaced this code.
        Hide
        Mohammad Nour added a comment -

        Now Sergey has sent us an e-mail confirming that he agrees on dual licensing his code under both ASL v2.0 additionally to LGPL. Now the question is:

        Is that enough ? Or we need to do a more formal action like make him sign some paper work for example ?

        Notice that he didn't update his site [1] yet to reflect that information.

        [1] - http://code.google.com/p/xmlhttprequest/

        Show
        Mohammad Nour added a comment - Now Sergey has sent us an e-mail confirming that he agrees on dual licensing his code under both ASL v2.0 additionally to LGPL. Now the question is: Is that enough ? Or we need to do a more formal action like make him sign some paper work for example ? Notice that he didn't update his site [1] yet to reflect that information. [1] - http://code.google.com/p/xmlhttprequest/
        Hide
        Sam Ruby added a comment -

        Thanks for retitling this.

        Licensing something under the Apache License, Version 2.0 give the Licensee (in this case, us) rights to sub-license and distribute the Work. And it would be our intent to so do – under the terms of our license, which in turn would give our licensees the right to do likewise.

        So the answer to the question posed by this issue is no, it doesn't make sense.

        That being said, it appears that the author is willing to work with us. Perhaps he is willing to dual license the code to everyone?

        Show
        Sam Ruby added a comment - Thanks for retitling this. Licensing something under the Apache License, Version 2.0 give the Licensee (in this case, us) rights to sub-license and distribute the Work. And it would be our intent to so do – under the terms of our license, which in turn would give our licensees the right to do likewise. So the answer to the question posed by this issue is no, it doesn't make sense. That being said, it appears that the author is willing to work with us. Perhaps he is willing to dual license the code to everyone?
        Hide
        Dan Haywood added a comment -

        updated the summary title since wasn't particularly descriptive.

        Show
        Dan Haywood added a comment - updated the summary title since wasn't particularly descriptive.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Dan Haywood
          • Votes:
            1 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development