Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stefan.teleman@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5040B189.8050905@pathscale.com>
References: <C79D913B-F9F0-4492-BAAE-99D484816C87@jaguNET.com>
	<503E4D8C.9050304@hates.ms>
	<405AE5DF-EB6E-4ABF-A3E0-C584246AF31A@jaguNET.com>
	<503F44F1.40805@pathscale.com>
	<503F5CA3.2070404@hates.ms>
	<503F62FA.7060905@pathscale.com>
	<CAMeYnzH06HRAN9Ercf_Nj4khqZz6mwr0DC54Kfe1sE-Uf2rrGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<503FDF13.902@pathscale.com>
	<B36338B4-794F-45CA-B1FE-F4B592DC4913@hates.ms>
	<503FFE87.2040200@pathscale.com>
	<D59BAB53-F949-436D-AF86-79C91C6AF36E@jaguNET.com>
	<5040B189.8050905@pathscale.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:31:36 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALdE9OCggmhoaVxpD2RcfvMVqVyYS5ZmjP+NtPO35USiw8Hhew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New chair and/or attic
From: Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman@gmail.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, "C. Bergstr=C3=B6m"
<cbergstrom@pathscale.com> wrote:
> On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergstr=C3=B6m<cbergstrom@pathscale.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed.  Solution - mo=
ve
>>> it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the addit=
ional
>>> rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense.  I tho=
ught
>>> 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 th=
is
> 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 communit=
y
> is summed up with this..
> "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache Licens=
e
> to be compatible with GPL version 2"
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
> 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 advanta=
ge
> 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 figh=
t
> that.
>
> Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love i=
t
> and they contribute back.  To get users we need to solve problems for lar=
ger
> 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

--=20
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com