stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: New committers?
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:22:39 GMT
As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.

On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor <> wrote:

> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<>  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

View raw message