www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Similar terms to AL 2.0
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:26:17 GMT
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>  > [Once it's sync'd], our list of licenses with similar terms to AL 2.0 is at:
>  >
>  >  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>  >
>  >  Given that that list was created a couple of years back, and the
>  >  additions were just organic, I'd like to start this thread for other
>  >  ones that people think need to be added.
>  Overall, I'd prefer if we had actual use cases before we start adding
>  new license.
>  >  Here's my starter list:
>  >
>  >  * Artistic License (list variants?)
>  Artistic 2.0, clause (7) looks troublesome.

Agreed. It's clause 5 in Artistic 1.0. So that's out for 'similar
terms' I believe.

Raises the question of 'Can I use Perl?', and 'Can I depend on an
Artistic licensed work, other than that which ships with Perl by

>  >  * Ruby License
>  Section 4 specifies some limits when applied to the MRI itself, but
>  these limits do not apply to other software distributed under this
>  license.  Using (but not distributing) the MRI itself is a an
>  acceptable system requirement.
>  This makes it confusing to document.  Ruby is category A except when
>  it is not, in which case it is OK.  That's why my preference is to
>  start a page on things that can be considered 'systems' and simply
>  state that "anything written in Ruby and made available under the Ruby
>  license is OK as a dependency for a project written in Ruby".

+1 to not being 'similar terms', and +1 to your answer.

My general thinking with the page is to dump answers on there, and as
the answers conglomerate into groups we can build subpages. So I'll be
adding the question/answer tonight, but feel free to go with the
system page if you want. I know you've a bunch of examples.

>  >  * Microsoft Public License
>  +1

Phew. Least one of my mental list fits :)

>  >  * ASL 1.0 [Or possibly here we just say OpenSSL]. This has the
>  >  advertising clause - do we consider such a thing similar terms?
>  Could be consider a "restriction significantly different" from Apache
>  License 2.0.  I presume that there is a good reason that clause was
>  dropped.

Agreed. Also would apply to BSD's advertising clause.

Do we have any OpenSSL use cases to pursue this as a separate
question? Not sure how mod_ssl etc fit in with OpenSSL.


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