www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Two weeks left for comments! (was: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy)
Date Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:15:44 GMT
On Saturday 18 March 2006 07:09, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I know there are more of you out there with comments or concerns  
> about this policy.

I think Roy summarized my personal tack on this;

On Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:49, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> In my opinion, no source means no distribution from the ASF, regardless
> of anyone's opinion on how inconvenient that might be for users.
> Emphasizing that some perfectly reasonable open source code must only 
> be redistributed in binary form is contrary to our founding principle.

> At the same time, the above is the limit of our obligations.  There
> is no need to limit our software to one Apache License.

Now, having said that;
It helps many users to "know" that ASF software is normally unencumbered, and 
we should *strive* for that position. I like it, many others like it.
But, speaking for myself, it would be enough that each TLP was required to 
have a "License List" on the main page, where the licenses of dependencies 
were clearly stated. A quick glimpse and I can make my own judgement.

So, perhaps the "Policy" should be more flexible in favour of the PMCs (as Roy 
is suggesting) and made more into "Guidelines" to support the PMCs in their 
decision making and lower the number of questions to this list.


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