incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Thrift release legal issues
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:17:48 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Ralph Goers <>
> To: Legal Discuss <>;
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Thrift release legal issues
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Aug 16, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I've also found that there are 6 individuals listed in the
> >>> Facebook CCLA who do not have ICLAs with us and have accordingly
> >>> contacted them as well.
> >> 
> >> Was the Facebook CCLA a software grant and were the 6 individuals Facebook
> >> employees (if not, why were they listed in the CCLA)?
> > 
> > They were not Facebook employees.  The individuals in question were listed
> > as exclusions to the covered contributions. See
> > 
> >
> Thanks for the clarification.  I would think we would want ICLAs from those 6. I 
> don't suppose these folks had to sign anything before the code was contributed 
> to Apache? Out of curiosity, what license was the code under before it came to 
> Apache?

Basically an MIT license:

> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> So the first question is: do we have any contingency strategies
> >>> for the likely situation where not all past contributors to Thrift
> >>> will have paperwork on file in the near future?  Can Thrift still
> >>> cut a release or does that block it?  Thrift was in fact an open
> >>> source project prior to coming here, and it *has* released stuff under
> >>> an alternate license.  Does that mitigate the issue at all?
> >> 
> >> See my comment above.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> The second question regards the LICENSE file.  I'm accustomed to
> >>> seeing all the licenses for all the code to be distributed listed
> >>> in the LICENSE file, but don't see anywhere within the Incubator
> >>> docs that this concept is mandatory.  I've been pushing Thrift to
> >>> do this because that's the way I've usually seen it done but the
> >>> idea hasn't gained any traction with the thrift devs yet.  Is there
> >>> such a policy, does it simply constitute best practice, or am I
> >>> barking up the wrong tree?
> >> 
> >> I was under the impression the LICENSE file should contain the Apache 
> license.
> >> All other licenses should be referenced in the NOTICE file. See
> >>
> > 
> > That's not the way the Apache HTTPD Server manages their LICENSE file.
> > Each 3rd party component's corresponding license is included in the
> > LICENSE file.
> Perhaps I misunderstand how the LICENSE and NOTICE files are to be used then. 
> The link above actually includes a link to an HTTPD server NOTICE file as an 
> example. That sample NOTICE file does not include the actual license text and 
> doesn't contain either the 3rd party license or a link to it so it clearly isn't 
> sufficient. However,, which 
> discusses this, is still unresolved.

AIUI, and the way httpd does it, the LICENSE file contains all the licenses in
the distribution, preferably in an annotated fashion so you know which license
goes with which component.  The NOTICE file is for any additional required
Copyright statements and/or attribution notices that each license may require.

> >> 
> >>> The third issue is that Thrift intends to distribute with an LGPL
> >>> dependency on their build system.  I'm familiar with the scary language
> >>> adopted by the legal team regarding the LGPL, but don't consider this
> >>> situation to be problematic since it's just a few Makefiles and such.
> >>> Will I need to get special permission from legal for this?
> >> 
> >> If they are using Maven 2 and if the LGPL dependency is referenced as a
> >> dependency in the pom such that it is downloaded during the build and is not
> >> distributed with Apache software (or if the build process is functionally
> >> equivalent to this), I personally would have no problem with it being used as
> >> part of the build.
> > 
> > It's a C-style project, with C-style Makefiles.  Nothing is downloaded during
> > the build process- the LGPL'd Makefiles in question are in subversion and to
> > be distributed within a release package.
> My preference is that works under Category X shouldn't be in Apache SVN nor 
> should they be distributed as part of an Apache release. I believe that is in 
> general alignment with conversations on legal-discuss in the past but I would 
> expect that to get answered in the Jira issue, should one be created.

I'll create one if common sense practices are only applicable to JIRA issues.
Bundled LGPL'd build dependencies should be a no-brainer, we'll see what happens.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message