This page provides a history of the answers to questions asked on the legal-discuss@ mailing list, and the scope of those answers. As each answer is as much dictated by Apache Software Foundation (ASF) policy as any other interpretation, it is of most value to ASF projects.
The following criteria serve as guidelines for the answers on this page.
Please submit questions to the Legal Affairs Committee JIRA space.
Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. Ensure you are doing this when including these works. Note, this list is colloquially known as the Category A list.
This list is colloquially known as the Category X list. Further discussion of disallowed licenses:
A project written primarily and obviously in Ruby can have a dependency either on Matz's Ruby Interpreter (MRI),
or on any Gem which is licensed under the Ruby license.
Of course Gems written under other licenses (such as MIT) may also be OK, depending on the license.
Also note that the Ruby license is listed on the 'Category B' Weak Copyleft list below for binary usage (for example JRuby).
Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC.
Each license in this category requires some degree of reciprocity or other restriction on use (e.g., an anti-DRM provision); this may mean that additional action is warranted in order to minimize the chance that a user of an Apache product will create a derivative work of a differently-licensed portion of an Apache product without being aware of the applicable requirements.
Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled (see below):
By including only the object/binary form, there is less exposed surface area of the third-party work from which a work might be derived; this addresses the second guiding principle of this policy.
By attaching an appropriate and prominent label to the distribution, and requiring an explicit action by the user to get the reciprocally-licensed source, users are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly different from those of the Apache License. Please include the URL to the product's homepage in the prominent label. An appropriate and prominent label is a label the user will read while learning about the distribution - for example in a README. Please also ensure to comply with any attribution/notice requirements in the specific license in question.
For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification.
This is colloquially known as the Category B list.
The JSON Java library may be included. Please contact legal-discuss@ for other products under this license. Note that other organizations, for example Debian, do not allow the use of works under this license and that may affect their redistribution of your project.
Yes, treat it much as you currently would the Category B licenses above - "it may be included in binary form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled". If using the source, remove the files Sun licensed to Doug and treat as Category A (or get it from Harmony).
Insertion of OSGi metadata into 'Category B' licensed jars is permitted; even though that metadata becomes licensed under the 3rd party license when it is put in the jar, assuming that a note that this has occurred is included in the prominent labeling that the Category B language calls for.
It does not matter, unless the terms for that platform affect the Apache product's licensing. For example, creating a product that runs on Windows or Java, uses a web service such as Google Services or Yahoo Search, or is a plugin for a product such as JBoss or JIRA is fine, whereas creating a Linux kernel module is not fine because the Apache product itself would have to be licensed under something other than the Apache License, version 2.0.
Note that this does not mean the platform code itself can be redistributed. That of course will depend on the licensing of said code. Also, if you have any doubts as to whether the licensing of the platform would affect the Apache code, we recommend that you check the legal-discuss@ archives to see if it has come up before, and if not email legal-discuss@ to find out.
Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing. For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.
Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a project can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality. The question to ask yourself in this situation is:
IP clearance is used to import code bases from outside Apache for future development here.
There are licenses that give broad rights for redistribution of unmodified copies. Such licenses are not open source, but they do satisfy the second and third guiding principles above.
Apache projects must not include material under such licenses in version control or in released source packages. It is however acceptable for a build process to automatically download such non-software materials like fonts and standardized data and include them in the resulting binaries. Such use makes it clear that these dependencies are not a part of the open source code of the project.
Material under the following licenses may be used as described above:
Many languages have developed an ecosystem of associated tools that aid in the building of artifacts for distribution. While such tools may not always be made available under an otherwise compatible license, specific tools have been OK'ed for inclusion in Apache distributions when used for that specific purpose.
The most important criteria to be included in this category is that such tools are not customarily part of distributions of running code, unless such deliverables include source anyway. Other criteria for inclusion include: having been around for years, being defacto standards in their respective communities, being made available under are under "library" or "lesser" licenses or otherwise containing an exception which ensures that usage of this tool does not affect the license of the code against which it is run.
To date, the following tools have been approved for such usage:
When including that work's licensing, state which license is being used and include only the license that you have chosen. Prefer Category A to Category B to Category X. You don't need to modify the work itself if, for example, it mentions the various licensing options in the source headers.
Works in the public domain (or covered by a license treated similarly) may be included within Apache products. Attribution is required (in a similar fashion to permissive licenses).
A work should be treated as being in the public domain when one of the following applies:
Licenses that should be treated as similar to public domain:
Note that whether a work falls in the public domain may be a difficult, even controversial, subject. Questions have been raised about the effectiveness of attempts by authors to place works into the public domain (under modern copyright laws). Determining whether the copyright in a work has expired may often be non-trivial and may vary between jurisdictions.
When a release contains third party works, the licenses covering those works may ask that consumers are informed in certain specific fashions. These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice. For some licenses some additional notice is required. In many cases, this will be included within the dependent artifact.
A required third-party notice is any third party notice which isn't covered by the above cases.
See Bundling Other ASF Products for a note on required notices when a release contains another Apache product.
Yes (LEGAL-79). Developing Perl bindings which link compiled C code to create dynamically loaded XS modules requires including header files licensed under the Perl license (http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ - GPL-any/Artistic1, with exceptions). You may include these header files - XSUB.h, perl.h and EXTERN.h.
Only if their employment situation necessitates that a CCLA be signed. See section 4 of the ICLA for details.
Committers must sign an ICLA. They make an individual claim that the code that they contribute is theirs to license. Reviewing their ICLA against their employer's ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects of their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular project they are committing in.
The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/ICLA signer may use to eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws, contracts, policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers are confident of their individual representations under the ICLA, many other committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own ICLA with this umbrella document.
It is the ICLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
Finally, see section 8 of the ICLA, which requires signers to notify the Foundation when their status changes in ways that may require this to be reassessed.
As long as the generated comments are removed from the Doxygen-generated files, these files may be used.