stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.me...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: New committers?
Date Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:28:34 GMT
Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> writes:

> 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 is this discussion all about, I think I got lost in all the
if&buts of the licensing, again IANAL. Is there any FAQ, explaining on
practical examples, like project X uses ALv2 and wants to link GPLv2
code Y, but is a system library, so project X can exploit clause #12345
of the GPLv2 license and do it, but needs to be licensed under GPLv2 or
GPLv3, etc. Still I am reading that ALv2 does not require the fork to be
licensed under the same license (!), so that made me completely lost:

"The Apache License is permissive, so it does not require modified
versions of the software to be distributed using the same license
(unlike copyleft licenses - see comparison). In every licensed file, any
original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices in
redistributed code must be preserved (excluding notices that do not
pertain to any part of the derivative works); and, in every licensed
file changed, a notification must be added stating that changes have
been made to that file."
(wikipedia; I can't read the original maze.)

Sorry, but now I am out of this particular discussion.

Thanks,
--
Wojciech Meyer
http://danmey.org

Mime
View raw message