www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:29:53 GMT
On Mar 16, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:

> After looking at your latest post, I actually think we are on the same
> page on all but the binary question for reciprocal licenses.  Let me
> know if I'm misconstruing your comments below, but it looks like you
> have affirmed the three license criteria of the policy, but disagree
> on the extra condition for reciprocal licenses.

And I don't agree with the first two "Guiding Principles", as I
already pointed out.  What I decribed is how MPL and CDDL both meet
all of the criteria aside from the first two "Guiding principles"
(which are just criteria by a different name) and the extra condition
on reciprocal licenses (another criteria by a different name).

It would make it a lot easier to read and discuss the policy if
you simply list all of them as policy constraints, not principles
and criteria and conditions.  Every one of those items are policy
decisions that could be changed by the board at any time (even
reliance on the OSD to define what open source means -- the board
could choose to write its own definition if it wanted to waste time).


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message