* Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT
@ 2017-04-11 20:52 Martin Kelly
2017-04-12 7:14 ` Jussi Kukkonen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kelly @ 2017-04-11 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yocto
Hi,
I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from
openswitch[1] into openembedded (it massively improves the performance
of VMWare guests) but first I have a question about licensing. The
openswitch repository is Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers
are all MIT licensed. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the
Apache license is a superset of the MIT license (it includes a patent
clause that the MIT license lacks), and therefore MIT code can be
relicensed as Apache but not the other way around. If that's the case,
then there's two options here:
(1) - Include this recipe in openembedded with an Apache license, while
the rest of the recipes are MIT-licensed. This sounds complicated,
messy, and probably not feasible.
(2) - Ask openswitch for permission to relicense that one recipe as MIT
with attributions.
I'm wondering if someone with a better understanding than I have could
provide me me advice about the best way to proceed.
Thanks,
Martin
[1]:
https://github.com/open-switch/ops-build/tree/master/yocto/openswitch/meta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT
2017-04-11 20:52 Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT Martin Kelly
@ 2017-04-12 7:14 ` Jussi Kukkonen
2017-04-12 9:54 ` Paul Eggleton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jussi Kukkonen @ 2017-04-12 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Kelly; +Cc: Yocto Project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1562 bytes --]
On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from openswitch[1]
> into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWare guests)
> but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repository is
> Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT licensed. I'm not
> a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a superset of
> the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license lacks),
> and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the other way
> around.
>
The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files
themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch and
build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open
source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an
openembedded layer.
To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the
source code license of the project to be built and should be set based on
the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fetch
and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/or
COPYING files of the layer it is in.
By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org reveals this:
http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/meta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb
(it seems to think the correct license is GPL).
Jussi
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2179 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT
2017-04-12 7:14 ` Jussi Kukkonen
@ 2017-04-12 9:54 ` Paul Eggleton
2017-04-12 10:50 ` Jussi Kukkonen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggleton @ 2017-04-12 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yocto, Martin Kelly
On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote:
> > I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from openswitch[1]
> > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWare guests)
> > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repository is
> > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT licensed. I'm
> > not
> > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a superset of
> > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license lacks),
> > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the other way
> > around.
>
> The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files
> themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch and
> build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open
> source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an
> openembedded layer.
>
> To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the
> source code license of the project to be built and should be set based on
> the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fetch
> and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/or
> COPYING files of the layer it is in.
>
> By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org reveals this:
> http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me
> ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb
> (it seems to think the correct license is GPL).
This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has nothing to do
with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe itself.
My person opinion on the original question is that we shouldn't complicate
matters by adding more than one license for metadata within the same layer if
it's avoidable, so my suggestion would be to ask the original authors if they
would be willing to relicense the single recipe you wish to copy as MIT.
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT
2017-04-12 9:54 ` Paul Eggleton
@ 2017-04-12 10:50 ` Jussi Kukkonen
2017-04-12 16:43 ` Martin Kelly
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jussi Kukkonen @ 2017-04-12 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: Yocto Project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]
On 12 April 2017 at 12:54, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> > On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from
> openswitch[1]
> > > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWare
> guests)
> > > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repository
> is
> > > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT licensed. I'm
> > > not
> > > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a
> superset of
> > > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license
> lacks),
> > > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the other
> way
> > > around.
> >
> > The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files
> > themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch
> and
> > build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open
> > source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an
> > openembedded layer.
> >
> > To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the
> > source code license of the project to be built and should be set based on
> > the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fetch
> > and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/or
> > COPYING files of the layer it is in.
> >
> > By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org reveals this:
> > http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/
> tree/yocto/openswitch/me
> > ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-
> vm-tools_10.0.5.bb
> > (it seems to think the correct license is GPL).
>
> This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has nothing to
> do
> with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe itself.
>
Thanks Paul: I was indeed confused and did not understand this was about an
existing recipe even though it was clearly explained in the original post.
Sorry for the noise.
Jussi
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3070 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT
2017-04-12 10:50 ` Jussi Kukkonen
@ 2017-04-12 16:43 ` Martin Kelly
2017-04-12 20:04 ` Martin Kelly
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kelly @ 2017-04-12 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jussi Kukkonen, Paul Eggleton; +Cc: Yocto Project
On 04/12/2017 03:50 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
>
>
> On 12 April 2017 at 12:54, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com
> <mailto:paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> > On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com <mailto:mkelly@xevo.com>> wrote:
> > > I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from openswitch[1]
> > > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWare guests)
> > > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repository is
> > > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT licensed. I'm
> > > not
> > > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a superset of
> > > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license lacks),
> > > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the other way
> > > around.
> >
> > The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files
> > themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch and
> > build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open
> > source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an
> > openembedded layer.
> >
> > To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the
> > source code license of the project to be built and should be set based on
> > the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fetch
> > and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/or
> > COPYING files of the layer it is in.
> >
> > By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org <http://layers.openembedded.org> reveals this:
> > http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me
> <http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me>
> > ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb
> <http://open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb>
> > (it seems to think the correct license is GPL).
>
> This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has
> nothing to do
> with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe itself.
>
>
>
> Thanks Paul: I was indeed confused and did not understand this was about
> an existing recipe even though it was clearly explained in the original
> post. Sorry for the noise.
>
> Jussi
Right, I should have clarified. The underlying code is LGPLv2/GPLv2, but
the recipe file itself is Apache licensed, which is my concern.
It sounds like I should ask openswitch for relicensing first. If they
say no, we can consider the situation further.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT
2017-04-12 16:43 ` Martin Kelly
@ 2017-04-12 20:04 ` Martin Kelly
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kelly @ 2017-04-12 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jussi Kukkonen, Paul Eggleton; +Cc: Yocto Project
On 04/12/2017 09:43 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 03:50 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 April 2017 at 12:54, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com
>> <mailto:paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
>> > On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com
>> <mailto:mkelly@xevo.com>> wrote:
>> > > I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from
>> openswitch[1]
>> > > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of
>> VMWare guests)
>> > > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch
>> repository is
>> > > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT
>> licensed. I'm
>> > > not
>> > > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a
>> superset of
>> > > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT
>> license lacks),
>> > > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the
>> other way
>> > > around.
>> >
>> > The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe
>> files
>> > themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes
>> fetch and
>> > build are another thing. As long as the source code license is
>> an open
>> > source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an
>> > openembedded layer.
>> >
>> > To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers
>> to the
>> > source code license of the project to be built and should be set
>> based on
>> > the licensing info found within the version of source code that
>> we fetch
>> > and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the
>> LICENSE and/or
>> > COPYING files of the layer it is in.
>> >
>> > By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org
>> <http://layers.openembedded.org> reveals this:
>> >
>> http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me
>>
>>
>> <http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me>
>>
>> >
>> ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb
>> <http://open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb>
>> > (it seems to think the correct license is GPL).
>>
>> This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has
>> nothing to do
>> with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe
>> itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Paul: I was indeed confused and did not understand this was about
>> an existing recipe even though it was clearly explained in the original
>> post. Sorry for the noise.
>>
>> Jussi
>
> Right, I should have clarified. The underlying code is LGPLv2/GPLv2, but
> the recipe file itself is Apache licensed, which is my concern.
>
> It sounds like I should ask openswitch for relicensing first. If they
> say no, we can consider the situation further.
OK, Diego Dompe, the recipe's author, is amenable to relicensing, so I
will go ahead and do that. Thanks for the help!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-04-12 20:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-04-11 20:52 Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT Martin Kelly
2017-04-12 7:14 ` Jussi Kukkonen
2017-04-12 9:54 ` Paul Eggleton
2017-04-12 10:50 ` Jussi Kukkonen
2017-04-12 16:43 ` Martin Kelly
2017-04-12 20:04 ` Martin Kelly
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.