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 22:27:34 GMT
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >  default?'.
> >
> > Of course we can use Perl.  And the code under the Artistic License
> > coming from CPAN are analogous to Ruby gems.
> >
> > When people use frameworks like Rails, they often stick snapshots of
> > specific versions of gems that they depend on in a "vendor" directory
> > and distribute it.  I'm comfortable with that practice for gems
> > licensed under the Ruby license - but not the MRI itself.  But given
> > the differences between the Ruby license and the Artistic License, I
> > would be reluctant to giving the thumbs up to a similar practice for
> > Perl.
> >
> >
>
> From what I understand, most Perl packages, like the runtime, rely on the
> first version of the Artistic License:
>
> http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html
>
> This one seems less problematic to me than the 2.0, don't you think?

Section 5 in the first version seems much the same as section 7 in the
second version. If that's our sticking point, then I don't see the two
licenses being any less problematic.

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


Mime
View raw message