www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:14:06 GMT
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>  > Sam Ruby wrote:
>  > >  Our code having dependencies that would be incompatible with any or
>  > >  all such uses effectively defeats the purpose behind us selecting such
>  > >  a liberal license.
>  > When the pages that describe the rules are updated, IMO it would be
>  > very helpful to have such a "statement of intent" as part of the
>  > introduction/overview.
>  +1

What bothers me is that I would have no problem with the following scenario:

Suppose a group of people decided that Microsoft Excel version 12.0
was bogus, but Microsoft Excel version 11.0 rocks, and decided to
collaborate on a set of macros for that specific version of that
specific product and only for Office 2004 for the Mac. As long as the
work that they produce is otherwise free of legal entanglements and
they otherwise are a diverse and sustainable collaboration, etc., then
I see no reason to block them pursuing incubation here at the ASF.

In such cases, what is important is no surprises and nobody gets mislead.

And while the above scenario is intentionally absurd, there are a
number of projects here at the ASF which are only a few steps away
from it.  And we are entirely OK with such projects continuing at the
ASF.  As well we should be.

The more I think about it, the issue isn't one where there is white on
one side and black on the other and increasing shades of gray in
between, but one where there is white on both sides and gray in the
middle.  Clearly and obviously specific is OK; completely open is not
OK and arguably better; but it is the cases where the entanglements
are both non-obvious and difficult to unravel that we have a problem

ActiveMQ.Net depending on a CLR is clearly OK.  Httpd having a
critical dependency on the CLR would raise a few eyebrows, however.
That doesn't mean that httpd couldn't pursue such a (IMO clearly
unwise) direction here at the ASF, but that that specific PMC would
need to ensure that this was clearly communicated and the we (the ASF
as a whole) would need to continue to be open to accepting
contributions that don't have such a dependency.

- Sam Ruby

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