If going from GPL -> AL, then it would require that
each and every contributor to the GPL codebase would
need to certify that they approve a relicensing
from GPL to AL.
From AL->GPL is "easy"
The reverse is hard but do-able (since it requires
explicit contributor approval)
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Yeah - thanks for clarifying that Jim. I still don't have a 100%
> certainty of how a GPL side of it should be handled, but I stand
> corrected on the ASF side :-)
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jim.
>>
>> That's very helpful. I was under the impression that GPL had
>> restrictions that would prevent this, but after reading through the
>> GPL again, I don't see anything that stands out. I guess it'd be
>> the
>> same thing as the original contributor dual licensing the code since
>> there's nothing in AL to prohibit it.
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/07, Jim Jagielski <ji..agunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 12, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 4/12/07, Adrian Wiesmann <awiesman..omap.org> wrote:
>>> >>> The technicaly easiest solution would be if Cayenne agrees in
>>> our
>>> >>> project
>>> >>> taking exlusively (and only for our SOBF Tool) the data view
>>> >>> source code
>>> >>> (and dvmodeler) and relicence it under the GPL. With the
>>> >>> condition that we
>>> >>> dual-licence everything we do on the DataViews under the ASL.
>>> >>> Like that we
>>> >>> could integrate everything without the need to have a
>>> separate lib.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's not quite as easy as you'd think. You have to find
>>> everyone who
>>> >> ever worked on the DataViews code, and individually get them to
>>> >> relicense the code to you. The Cayenne project (nor the ASF)
>>> cannot
>>> >> relicense the code as we don't have the right to do that.
>>> Both the
>>> >> project and ASF can only use the code as it was licensed to
>>> them by
>>> >> the individuals involved.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > That's a good explanation of how things work.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Not sure I'm completely sure of what the main point here,
>>> but the way the AL is constructed is that someone could,
>>> if they wished, take AL-licensed code and relicense it
>>> under the GPL, or any other license they wanted. They
>>> would simply need to adhere to the specification in
>>> section 4 of the AL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Apr 12 2007 - 11:43:06 EDT