On 09/06/2012 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.

Not necessarily as an ASF project. Christopher is interested
in moving the project somewhere else. See for example:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201106.mbox/%3C4DFAE25E.9040703@pathscale.com%3E

I would also like to know what the options are.

Martin

>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor<msebor@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<msebor@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>>> My input below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>>>>>    stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>>>>>    sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>>>>>    re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>>>>>    the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>>>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>>>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>>>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>>>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>>>
>>>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>>>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>>>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>>>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
>>> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
>>> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
>>> such derivative works."
>>>
>>> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
>>> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
>>> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
>>> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
>>> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
>>> GPLv2...
>>
>> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
>> asks (IIUC)?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>