Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.166.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=DiPULF5wGmPcalVCWqd/J+N/zkMYIRfbua09g0FqGKsQvIRJfOv9XALgLQG1l9jWptnzu7U6Lf6gXnRG8mEc92bmiLFc3Ni94N1XG30TuMynKmZrEf7r8Lc6i0snrjSs01BI5Km7OuLEkJOjyFhXahA7RXM2bSA4O6g4+MFMDL8=
Message-ID: <5c902b9e0603150946h36dae906he84f8dca68ad34cf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:46:20 -0800
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <justin@erenkrantz.com>
Sender: justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com
To: jim@jagunet.com
Subject: Re: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy
Cc: "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschmidt@gmail.com>,
	"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>,
	"Legal Discuss" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <200603151311.k2FDB2V02875@devsys.jaguNET.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200603151311.k2FDB2V02875@devsys.jaguNET.com>

On 3/15/06, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I am not fine with such a bundling, since it affects redistribution
> of ASF code. Of course, everyone knows my thoughts on non-compatible
> licenses and redistributing, so I won't go into that. But my
> thoughts on bundling is that it creates an impression that
> we are "OK" with such blurring of licensing. Having a
> seperate download makes it V. clear what is and what is
> not AL-licensed and what is "officially" ASF packages.

Let me try to restate what I believe you are saying so that it's
clear: we can only distribute packages that are licensed entirely
under the ALv2.  This means that anything not directly licensed under
the ALv2 can't be redistributed at all.  This means that substantial
chunks of httpd must be removed to comply (anything BSD-licensed,
etc.).

Is this correct?

To be clear, what I intend is as follows:
 - It is okay to have code in SVN that is under MIT, BSD, ASLv1.1, etc.
 - It is okay to distribute binaries from our servers that is under
CDDL/MPL/etc.
 - It is never okay to have code in SVN or distribute software under
GPL/Sleepycat/etc.

My hunch is that we might be saying the same things, but getting wires
crossed. -- justin

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