Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates
 209.85.146.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=g7SPiw+uYiAY7wJVqNe5HwN6nGlCzrZxNRShwUn9XNuvtD3xkb9hIAtjCMyQSbZI3T+Xt+wNI8D62kK6SToKc82kkutbCLbmwPJEXgqUNRv9fdCCbDzRw9D2Tg1hp7HRlmKaHRh5/xpjQCv4o7rpYy01PhdHMhz8cM2nre9cCRs=
Message-ID: <2d12b2f00710202356p3f5f9f03l923fd281463a62b6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:56:59 -0700
From: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
Sender: hyandell@gmail.com
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Third-party licensing policy: OSL 3.0
In-Reply-To: <047101c81328$b1affee0$6401a8c0@LROSENTOSHIBA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <510143ac0710190412u1de10003if3aef4e8dc0681e1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0710190625jf03515cy24b2bbefcc4c7064@mail.gmail.com>
	 <040401c81262$5ea0ca70$6401a8c0@LROSENTOSHIBA>
	 <2d12b2f00710200042j7eb3b74cqe25d07b292506231@mail.gmail.com>
	 <047101c81328$b1affee0$6401a8c0@LROSENTOSHIBA>

On 10/20/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > I'm sure this will irk Larry, but one source of commentary on both OSL
> > and AFL is the GPL compatibility page:
> >
> > "Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which
> > requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.
> > This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites,
> > sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in
> > an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the
> > license and would subject you to possible termination of the license.
>
> What irks me is that this is more hogwash from FSF. "Reasonable efforts" to
> obtain express assent can be entirely compatible with FTP distribution or
> the other techniques they mention. OSL 3.0 does not require specific assent
> mechanisms.
>
> > The FSF assessment seems pretty fair; there's no way we'll be making
> > any effort to get assent beyond putting the license in the LICENSE
> > file.
>
> If what you do now is "reasonable under the circumstances," what makes you
> think that OSL/AFL 3.0 would require more than that?

My thinking was that more than the license file would be needed to
imply assent; partly because I was thinking the license told us to
maintain the license file. In OSL's case, it does, we would have to
keep the OSL license, but with AFL we could relicense the AFL work as
AL 2.0 if we so wanted.

People do click throughs on the web for downloads, so that would be
reasonable under the circumstances of a download; however we do
mirroring with an extremely low level of requirement on the mirrors -
flat files only - so that would make it unreasonable for us to do
clickthroughs.

If Sam/Legal committee are happy with that, then I propose Category A
for AFL and Category B for OSL.

Hen

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