www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:50:05 GMT
On 3/17/06, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Actually, no.  it's only the second principle you disagree with.  You
> > previously misread the first principle, and I even chose to revise it
> > with your words to be *extra* clear.  As a reminder:
>
> Cliff, I haven't gone senile yet.  I don't agree with the principle
> that ASF projects must only produce software under the Apache License.
> The only principle that exists is the one written in our incorporation
> agreement with the state, which is that we produce open source software
> for the public.

Sorry about that, Roy.  Of course, it's dangerous to try to tell
someone what they disagree with.  I just thought we had resolved that
issue, but now I understand what your concern is.  So, I guess this
remains an issue we will have to agree to disagree on.

> The board has constrained the projects to produce new software under
> the Apache License.  That is a constraint, not a principle.  At times
> I have agreed with that constraint, at other times I have disagreed
> with it, and right now I would prefer that the board only constrain
> us to licenses that accomplish our mission.  In any case, I want to
> make it clear that there are some policies that are inherent in our
> Foundation and others that are simply choices that we have made.

Well, if the board ever decides to loosen the restriction to allow two
or three options for Apache projects to license their work under, I
will revise the third-party licensing policy's principle to say
something like, "The ASF must be able to distribute works created
within an Apache Project solely under one of the board-approved
licenses for Apache project works."  This would still address the
concern I have that we don't use licenses in third-party works that
would restrict our ability to license works created in projects within
whatever the board-constrained licenses are.

But until that day, I think the principle is fine the way it is.  I'm
not asking for a discussion about whether the ASF should change how
project-created works are licensed.  This is a discussion about a
policy for inclusion of *third-party works*.

Cliff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message