Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [license] Alternate License Eclipse Krazo Apache 2.0 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Kasandra Darwin <kasandra.darwin> | ||||||
| Component: | Proposals and Reviews | Assignee: | Eclipse Management Organization <emo> | ||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | christian, ivar.grimstad, mike.milinkovich, mrinal.kanti, sharon.corbett, wayne.beaton | ||||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Windows 10 | ||||||||
| URL: | https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-ozark | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | mike | ||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 528914 | ||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Kasandra Darwin
Hi Kasandra,
just to make sure that I fully understand the situation correctly:
The "non-standard licensing scheme" is basically the dual-licensing situation which results for the two licenses:
* "Apache License 2.0" which is currently used by Ozark and mentioned
in the proposal
* "Eclipse Public License 2.0" which is basically inherited from the
parent project EE4J
Is that correct?
Thank you very much
Christian
Hi Christian, Sort of-- my apologies for the error in my first message which is probably the cause of any confusion. The non-standard licensing scheme is referring to the use of Apache 2.0 INSTEAD of the default listed on the [1]EE4J project page Please assemble a short slide deck that describes why the project team chose licensing under Apache 2.0. If you do wish to dual license under EPL 2.0 or Apache 2.0, then please explain that in the slide deck and update the proposal. This information is required in order to seek board approval. The slides will be presented to the Board of Directors to motivate the license requirement and gain board approval at the next meeting. Hope that helps! Thanks, Kasandra [1] https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j (In reply to Christian Kaltepoth from comment #1) > * "Eclipse Public License 2.0" which is basically inherited from the > parent project EE4J For completeness, the EE4J sets the EPL-2.0 with a secondary license of GPL-2.0 with Classpath exception. I believe that the PMC will compell the project to license under that. I'm pretty sure that dual licensing with Apache-2.0 is fine. Can I update the proposal accordingly? Hi Wayne, Yes, your proposal sounds reasonable. One question though: Do we really need the GPL with classpath exception in this case? Or is it possible to have EPL-2.0 with secondary license being Apache-2.0? If this complicates things, then just go with your suggestion. Ivar (In reply to Ivar Grimstad from comment #4) > Do we really need the GPL with classpath exception in this case? > Or is it possible to have EPL-2.0 with secondary license being Apache-2.0? The notion of secondary license is restricted to the GPL. The secondary license is similar to, but not quite the same thing as dual licensing. FWIW, the SPDX folks decided that the secondary license is half of a disjunction of licenses (i.e. a dual licensing scenario). The EE4J Top-Level Project Charter states that all EE4J projects are licensed EPL-2.0 with GPL-2.0 with Classpath Exception by default. It occurs to me that we really should capture why, but I'll take that up with the PMC. The short version is that the secondary license allows the content to be distributed under the terms of the license. It effectively makes the EPL-2.0 compatible with the GPL. In this case, it's the GPL with classpath exception. Consumers building applications on top of the framework need the classpath exception part. Anyway... to conform to the TLP Charter, the default EE4J license should be applied; and we can dual license the content Apache-2.0. Hi everyone, just a small update on this: Ivar and I are currently discussing the licensing issue. We are thinking about just using the same licensing scheme as the EE4J umbrella project instead of ASL. I guess this would simplify the overall process. We will come back to you on this subject as soon as possible. Christian The EE4J PMC is discussing whether the default EE4J licensing scheme with EPL-2.0 with GPL-2.0 with Classpath Exception actually should apply to _implementation projects_ such as Ozark. Specifically, the GPL part of it complicates inclusion in ASL-2.0 licensed projects, such as Apache TomEE. A decision on this from the PMC is expected on the next PMC meeting January 16, 2018. Hi Ivar, Was there any resolution on the licensing matter in the PMC meeting? Thanks, Kasandra Hi Kasandra, Yes, we have discussed it at length. After the last iteration, it seems like there are no problems with EPL-2.0+GPL-2.0 with CE even for use with ASL-2.0 projects. So I guess we are back to going with the default EE4J licensing. I will update our project proposal accordingly. Ivar Since there is no longer an alternative licensing scheme being requested, I will close this ticket. Hi, Sorry about this, but it seems like the PMC would like to re-iterate on the licensing. We would like to prevent that Ozark is creating a precedence for future projects before everybody is onboard with the decision. Ivar Created attachment 275526 [details]
Justification for keeping current license (Apache v2)
I have added a couple of slides for justifying continued use of Apache v2 License for Ozark. (In reply to Ivar Grimstad from comment #13) > I have added a couple of slides for justifying continued use of Apache v2 > License for Ozark. Can you update the slides with the approved project name, please? Created attachment 275616 [details]
Justification for keeping current license (Apache v2) for Krazo
Updated the slides to new project name
Mike, I believe that your approval is all that we require here. Can we get a +1? (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #16) > Mike, I believe that your approval is all that we require here. Can we get a > +1? Approved. |