From dev-return-8595-apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive=stdcxx.apache.org@stdcxx.apache.org Sun Sep 2 15:28:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E30DDC6A for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:28:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 82189 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2012 15:28:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 82150 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2012 15:28:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 82142 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2012 15:28:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:28:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.54] (HELO mail-wg0-f54.google.com) (74.125.82.54) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:28:42 +0000 Received: by wgx1 with SMTP id 1so3146129wgx.35 for ; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IrocIDFGuVpb0tka6ei0bUoprJL5KqneqSfsSlice/4=; b=BJd3xvrCJmxtkyxFMSKn4ba4Y8lzssoYYlV7GVrx0pJi+47r1BwLTTKoLG173B8yXh rL+ZI8T9dJ+Sn7JQvjyMHxN4aewx+Hqe+j9EubnZZXwHTmNESdkPdXxJuVzYSNIiV+f6 /bRSWgIeUPwqxEzidYWqtSGDYBDEKySJYVbgqprqQ9lX9pz/aDs2a5OFA2VRLf+Pb/1L IgJMnQumwX4wBqhBwnSWab4mVEDU1lfqbIQtZ4yFQ3p8+US75an/5CX42GniWUK40Hyn AuMjCpI0BGuPT54m3FlxiBijpL3V59JyZyXLzkK0NK1NFru2tjH/sa/kF3wYtyvbPlVj ildQ== Received: by 10.216.210.144 with SMTP id u16mr5642475weo.174.1346599702036; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spec-desktop.danmey.org (cpc1-cmbg12-0-0-cust201.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com. [86.9.116.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2sm20246675wiz.7.2012.09.02.08.28.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 02 Sep 2012 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Wojciech Meyer To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Cc: Liviu Nicoara Subject: Re: New committers? References: <503F6E0B.2080009@hates.ms> <503F8EF0.7070907@gmail.com> <9ipfw7389fq.fsf@e103010-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <504120A8.2000404@hates.ms> <5042DA60.8090107@gmail.com> <326D0E2A-B731-42F3-8014-0FB43D1942E4@jaguNET.com> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 16:28:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <326D0E2A-B731-42F3-8014-0FB43D1942E4@jaguNET.com> (Jim Jagielski's message of "Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:42:38 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim Jagielski writes: > 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 Bergstr=C3=B6m 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