incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:57:23 GMT
Scott Cantor wrote:

>>There is the one I don't believe.  By their statement it did not say 
>>that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate 
>>license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of 
>>contradicted that.  IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than 
>>LGPL section 6. .  So I would expect the board to treat this 
>>as needing to be crystal clear.
>>    
>>
>
>Certainly, but I still don't know what you're reading into this. Let me try this one more
time. The rule as it's currently going to
>be defined will be:
>
>Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free license from RSA to use
it, separate from whatever other license
>applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into changing their mind, that's
the story. No ambiguity intended.
>  
>
I object to this.  And it did not say WILL be royalty-free it said 
INTEND and there is a special mention for those who might write 
security-base products.

>Will it be royalty-free forever and ever? No idea. But whatever you're reading into the
statement they posted, I can clearly
>communicate that the above is exactly what we've been told in plain English.
>  
>
I object to that as well.

>If that's a deal-breaker for the board, then I'm simply suggesting that that be made clear
so that the principals can either drop
>the proposal or tell RSA that it's a problem. The latter has been done informally, but
obviously there's a stronger case to be made
>to them if we can say "change it or the standard isn't going to be accepted".
>  
>
I would like to petition the board for such a statement.


>
>Unlike RSA's intent, the above is not clear to me. I have no idea whether a requirement
to fax RSA a signed document constitutes a
>"hindrance". If what you mean is that there are no other terms in play other than the
ASL, then this is asked and answered, I think.
>Right now, the answer is no, the ASL is only the code license. Right to use a SAML library
(as opposed to a product) requires direct
>permission from RSA at no cost.
>  
>
This is not clear to me. 

-Andy

>  
>
>>I do not think my concerns are petty and irrelevant as you seem to.
>>    
>>
>
>I'd ask that you please don't put words in my mouth. Your concerns are unclear to me.
If they were petty and irrelevant, I wouldn't
>be wasting my precious time responding to them.
>
>-- Scott
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>  
>



Mime
View raw message