License: Apache/CDDL/GPL2 with exception

[DamianFekete]

There are about 50 files that have a somewhat confusing license header. For example: https://github.com/Atmosphere/atmosphere/blob/master/modules/cpr/src/main/java/org/atmosphere/cpr/Broadcaster.java where it is stated that:

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License")
...
The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU General 
Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the Common Development and 
Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the "License")

Which is the "License"? Is there any code left in the sources from Sun Microsystems, Inc that is not under the Apache license?

[jfarcand]

@tehnicaorg Yes, there is still some code from Sun. The Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License") is the normal header from Apache, not sure what is your question....

[DamianFekete]

Thank you for your reply!

My question is what license does that code have? Apache or/xor/and GPL/CDDL? Can I pick which license I want from the three of them? The comments say that two different things. At first, it is stated that the file is licensed under Apache license but after a couple of lines it is stated that it is licensed under GPL or CDDL. Which one is correct?

Was the code in the past only under GPL/CDDL? Was it afterwards licensed also under the Apache license by Sun? AFAIK one can't relicense the code from GPL/CDDL to Apache unless it is the owner of the code.

I hope now it's clear what I'm asking.

[jfarcand]

The current code is Apache, with some old classes 'forked' from java.net's Atmosphere Project, which are now Apache as well, but the header file must be kept like it was before.

Consider Atmosphere's on Github a fork of java.net Atmosphere's code. So the project is under Apache, with some old dependencies. Does it help?

[DamianFekete]

Unfortunately I think the situation is not clear enough.

Did you too owned the copyright before (on java.net) or did only Sun owned the copyright? Now I've also found this message from Jan 2012 http://atmosphere-framework.2306103.n4.nabble.com/atmosphere-licensing-td4320259.html so I suspect Oracle owns parts of the copyright under a license that is not Apache. Or has something changed and they agreed to license the code under the Apache license?

I am wondering if you can mix code under GPL/CDDL with code that is supposed to be only under the Apache license (does that code automatically becomes GPL?)
From http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html : Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2,[...]

From https://github.com/Atmosphere/atmosphere/tree/master/license => After 0.4 Atmosphere has been relicensed using the APACHE 2 license.
Who was the copyright holder who agreed to this?
https://atmosphere.java.net/ contains only that the project moved, but on download.java.net both atmosphere-project-0.5.8.pom and atmosphere-project-0.6-SNAPSHOT.pom (after 0.4) state the license as CDDL

    <licenses>
        <license>
            <name>CDDL</name>
            <url>https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDLv1.0.html</url>
        </license>
    </licenses>

Once again thanks for taking the time to clear this up. (and like they say it in the movies: IANAL)

[jfarcand]

@tehnicaorg Sun/Oracle still own the code on java.net and since I was an employee @ Sun, hence I don't own the copyright. But since Atmosphere on Github can be seen as a fork of the java.net version, the CDDL/GPL doesn't apply.

[DamianFekete]

I do not think that by forking a GPL/CDDL project facilitates the change of project's licenses. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment.

I assume that old code that was under GPL/CDDL is still under the GPL/CDDL licenses (unless it was completely rewritten/relicensed by copyright owner). Do you agree? If you think there is no more code under GPL/CDDL, how was its license changed? And by whom?

[jfarcand]

@tehnicaorg Ping me on jfarcand.oss@gmail.com, will be easier to answer.

[rahulmohang]

Hi @jfarcand,

Many files in the latest version too carry both the license statements. Can you please let me know if you have reached a conclusion?