stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <>
Subject Re: New chair and/or attic
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:31:36 GMT
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, "C. Bergström"
<> wrote:
> On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström<>
>> wrote:
>>> While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed.  Solution - move
>>> it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional
>>> rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense.  I thought
>>> this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason
>>> instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and
>>> pushing to the attic.
>> What is wrong with ALv2?
> Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this
> brief..
> Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem
> here)
> FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community
> is summed up with this..
> "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License
> to be compatible with GPL version 2"
> That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is
> that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage
> of STDCXX due to it's license.  Please note I'm not arguing if this is
> "correct", but just the feedback I've gotten.  I'm not interested to fight
> that.
> Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it
> and they contribute back.  To get users we need to solve problems for larger
> communities - Make sense?
> Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no?

My 0.02 of observations about FOSS licenses in general, based on my
direct experience:

For any FOSS component M, licensed under an Open Source License N,
there will always exist a person P, or a group of persons G[P] who
will declare that the current license N is
inappropriate/invalid/incompatible/etc, and will advocate a change to
another Open Source License Q.


Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message