charm license requirements with multi-licensed payloads

[José Antonio Rey]

That is right. When you do a patch and include it inside a charm, what you
are doing is a contribution to the pre-existing code, hence inheriting the
license from another charm.

If it doesn't have a license and it's been released, I would assume a
public domain license until a license is specified. Of course, be polite
and ask the author first - they may have missed a bzr add!

--
José Antonio Rey

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 14:37 Merlijn Sebrechts <merlijn.sebrechts at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, José! I was curious about this too.
>
>
> A follow-up on this question: I have a Charm repo
> <https://github.com/galgalesh/tengu-charms> that includes Charms from
> different sources with patches. Some of these Charms are licensed
> differently, some require copyleft and some don't. Now, I do it this way: I
> have my own licence at the top of the repo. Charms from different sources
> have their own licence at the top of the Charm.
>
> This way, and I am only guessing this is how copyright works, when I patch
> a Charm, the patch automatically has the same licence as the Charm. If the
> Charm doesn't have a license, the repo licence is applied. Am I correct?
>
>
>
> Kind regards
> Merlijn
>
> 2015-10-27 18:12 GMT+01:00 José Antonio Rey <jose at ubuntu.com>:
>
>> Hey Kevin,
>>
>> When you write a charm and include a copyright file, what you are
>> licensing are the lines of code that you write in the charm, not the
>> software itself. You may choose any license you want.
>>
>> If you want to specify the license each piece of software uses, you can
>> do so in the README file, so users know what license each piece holds.
>>
>> --
>> José Antonio Rey
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 12:01 Kevin Monroe <kevin.monroe at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Our big data charms (apache licensed) deploy Hadoop (apache licensed).
>>> Hadoop supports various compression codecs, with one of the more popular
>>> being lzo.  lzo is GPLv2 licensed and therefore not distributed with Hadoop.
>>>
>>> As a charm author, what is my licensing obligation if I want my charm to
>>> install lzo on top of Hadoop?  Fwiw, the charm would fetch both hadoop.tgz
>>> and lzo.tgz from an external repo at install-time, so neither payload is
>>> bundled into the charm.  I assume this absolves me of any special licensing
>>> in my charm source, but I'd like to get a +1 on that.
>>>
>>> As the maintainer of an external repo, are there licensing obligations
>>> for hosting charm payloads?  I assume I could put a NOTICE in the root of
>>> the repo that says "hadoop.tgz is apache licensed (link to license).
>>>  lzo.tgz is gplv2 (link to source and license)."
>>>
>>> The sticky part to me is that no one would likely find my NOTICE in the
>>> repo, so I'm curious if I should put it directly in the charm source.  Is
>>> anyone else dealing with charm payloads of differing licenses?  How did you
>>> handle it?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Kevin Monroe
>>> --
>>> Juju mailing list
>>> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju mailing list
>> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bigdata/attachments/20151027/517d237c/attachment-0001.html>