Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 76.96.62.32 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\))
Subject: Re: New committers?
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <50462685.5090504@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:22:39 -0400
Cc: Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88DB89C0-2B4E-4330-8543-92B2FEBE9355@jaguNET.com>
References: <503F6E0B.2080009@hates.ms>
 <CALdE9OCSG6g=_nUrHm8v3O6HtjpdO98rQRHEmQs+cHvCUVBBng@mail.gmail.com>
 <503F8EF0.7070907@gmail.com>
 <E9106DC2-C2E5-4FB4-840D-2B949C603129@jaguNET.com>
 <9ipfw7389fq.fsf@e103010-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <504120A8.2000404@hates.ms>
 <5042DA60.8090107@gmail.com>
 <326D0E2A-B731-42F3-8014-0FB43D1942E4@jaguNET.com>
 <50462685.5090504@gmail.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org

As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.

On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>=20
>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<msebor@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>> My input below.
>>>>=20
>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>>=20
>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergstr=F6m 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)
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> 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."
>>=20
>> 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...
>=20
> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
> asks (IIUC)?
>=20
> Martin
>=20