Tickets :: Comment on [#3502] procmail forwarding may cause mail loops

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: . ..__.._..__ . \|\/\|\| \| \| \| \\| \| \|\|__\|_\|_\|__/\|___
Comment	> From further discussion by mail: > > > > Hi Josh, Jari, > > > > Zitat von Josh Kelley <joshkel@gmail.com>: > > > >> I've been in contact with the author of pm-lib regarding using his > >> code as part of the fix for http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/?id=3502. > >> Here's his latest reply. As the Apache 2.x license is compatible with > >> the GPL (or at least will be once GPL 3 is released), he had presented > >> using that as one possible solution to the licensing discrepancy; you > >> can read the rest of the dialog below. > >> > >> I think that we need input from the Horde developers at this point, so > >> I'm forwarding to you. > >> > >> Josh Kelley > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> > >> Date: Apr 4, 2006 1:16 PM > >> Subject: Re: Licensing question - sharing Apache and GPL code > >> (pm-lib/Ingo/Horde) > >> To: Josh Kelley <joshkel@gmail.com> > >> > >> > >> \| On 4/4/06, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> wrote: > >> \| > \| If my understanding of the incompatibilities is correct, then may I > >> \| > \| have permission to include some pm-lib code, under section 10 of the > >> \| > \| the GPL? > >> \| > > >> \| > You have my permission, but the problem is that it would not be > >> \| > legally valid. I propose the following (Ingo/Horde people CC'd). > >> \| > >> \| Why would it not be legally valid? As the author of pm-lib, you may > >> \| choose to license your code however you wish and make it available > >> \| under separate two licenses if you wish. Section 10 of the GPL > >> \| specifically permits authors of GPL'ed code to make the code available > >> \| for free software projects not under the GPL if they so desire. > >> > >> I explained too tersely. I meant that in the light of the license > >> parties' undertanding (Apache foundation and FSF), the Apache 1.x > >> license and GPL does not seem to be compatible. > >> > >> As for multiple licensing, which I have to politely decline, I have my > >> reservations, because they easily adds complexity that I'm unable to > >> handle and properly comprehend. I feel multiple licensing is for > >> Organizations and foundations that have the resources to know what > >> they are doing. The GPL in my view has advantage of being tested in > >> court, whereas the other licenses to my knowledge have not yet. > >> > >> When I referred to "it would not be legally valid", I meant: > >> > >> - I can give written permission to copy the code to > >> other projects. > >> - but whether it would be legally okay, I do not know. What if > >> the code is again distributed to other projects and with > >> BSD license? (I'm would not be in favor of BSD type commercial/closed/ > >> allowance licenses). > >> > >> The licensing issues are complex matter and I would rather suggest to > >> make an informed decision: > >> > >> - practical; just take the code and quote me > >> in the project files: "The Ingo project > >> has the permission to use Procmail Library code > >> under Apache licence v 1.x or any later version. > >> Permission obtained 2006-04-04 from Author Jari Aalto." > > > > This seems like the easiest way to go. We are talking about less then > ten lines of procmail recipe code (iirc) which is not really rocket > science. This would of course be a completely different story if we > were about to include large parts of, or the complete pm-lib. > > And it's similar to how we did handle inclusion of other third party > code or algorithms with written permission by the author. > > > >> I can pgp sign the wording as needed. You can also suggest wording > >> that we can agree on. > >> > >> - Long route; take the issue to the development team > >> (upstream; Ingo, Horde devel) and have a discussion to > >> persuate them to move to Apache 2.x licence or have them > >> add wording "Apache 1.x lincence or at your option > >> any later version" as GPL does. > > > > This seems impratical. I'm not sure if this an issue of GPL only or > with any licence like ASL here. But since contributors don't > explicitely hand the copyright over to the Horde Project (which > doesn't exist as a legal entity anyway), we probably can't simply > change the licence without the permission of each single contributor. > > > > Jan.
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries