[Tickets #3502] procmail forwarding may cause mail loops

[bugs@bugs.horde.org]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS NOT MONITORED.

Ticket URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/?id=3502
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ticket             | 3502
 Updated By         | Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>
 Summary            | procmail forwarding may cause mail loops
 Queue              | Ingo
 Version            | 1.0.2
 State              | Feedback
 Priority           | 2. Medium
 Type               | Bug
 Owners             | Jan Schneider, Horde Developers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org> (2006-04-12 15:30) wrote:

>From further discussion by mail:

Hi Josh, Jari,

Zitat von Josh Kelley <joshkel at gmail.com>:

> I've been in contact with the author of pm-lib regarding using his
> code as part of the fix for http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/?id=3502.
> Here's his latest reply.  As the Apache 2.x license is compatible with
> the GPL (or at least will be once GPL 3 is released), he had presented
> using that as one possible solution to the licensing discrepancy; you
> can read the rest of the dialog below.
>
> I think that we need input from the Horde developers at this point, so
> I'm forwarding to you.
>
> Josh Kelley
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto at cante.net>
> Date: Apr 4, 2006 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Licensing question - sharing Apache and GPL code
> (pm-lib/Ingo/Horde)
> To: Josh Kelley <joshkel at gmail.com>
>
>
> | On 4/4/06, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto at cante.net> wrote:
> | > | If my understanding of the incompatibilities is correct, then may I
> | > | have permission to include some pm-lib code, under section 10 of
the
> | > | the GPL?
> | >
> | > You have my permission, but the problem is that it would not be
> | > legally valid. I propose the following (Ingo/Horde people CC'd).
> |
> | Why would it not be legally valid?  As the author of pm-lib, you may
> | choose to license your code however you wish and make it available
> | under separate two licenses if you wish.  Section 10 of the GPL
> | specifically permits authors of GPL'ed code to make the code available
> | for free software projects not under the GPL if they so desire.
>
> I explained too tersely. I meant that in the light of the license
> parties' undertanding (Apache foundation and FSF), the Apache 1.x
> license and GPL does not seem to be compatible.
>
> As for multiple licensing, which I have to politely decline, I have my
> reservations, because they easily adds complexity that I'm unable to
> handle and properly comprehend. I feel multiple licensing is for
> Organizations and foundations that have the resources to know what
> they are doing. The GPL in my view has advantage of being tested in
> court, whereas the other licenses to my knowledge have not yet.
>
> When I referred to "it would not be legally valid", I meant:
>
> - I can give written permission to copy the code to
>   other projects.
> - but whether it would be legally okay, I do not know. What if
>   the code is again distributed to other projects and with
>   BSD license? (I'm would not be in favor of BSD type commercial/closed/
>   allowance licenses).
>
> The licensing issues are complex matter and I would rather suggest to
> make an informed decision:
>
> -  practical; just take the code and quote me
>    in the project files: "The Ingo project
>    has the permission to use Procmail Library code
>    under Apache licence v 1.x or any later version.
>    Permission obtained 2006-04-04 from Author Jari Aalto."

This seems like the easiest way to go. We are talking about less then ten
lines of procmail recipe code (iirc) which is not really rocket science.
This would of course be a completely different story if we were about to
include large parts of, or the complete pm-lib.
And it's similar to how we did handle inclusion of other third party code or
algorithms with written permission by the author.

> I can pgp sign the wording as needed. You can also suggest wording
> that we can agree on.
>
> -  Long route; take the issue to the development team
>    (upstream; Ingo, Horde devel) and have a discussion to
>    persuate them to move to Apache 2.x licence or have them
>    add wording "Apache 1.x lincence or at your option
>    any later version" as GPL does.

This seems impratical. I'm not sure if this an issue of GPL only or with any
licence like ASL here. But since contributors don't explicitely hand the
copyright over to the Horde Project (which doesn't exist as a legal entity
anyway), we probably can't simply change the licence without the permission
of each single contributor.

Jan.