www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:04:04 GMT
Sam Ruby 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.

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

If you are implying that the code is in some way LICENSED only for those
versions, or that they would block others from making the codebase v12
compatible, then I would have a problem.  Our code exists for people to do
whatever they want with it, constrained (loosely speaking) only by their
ability to sue or reference our own trademarks.

Now, I suspect from context that you meant it as an example of dependency,
but that's not how I read your scenario at first glance.

> there are a number of projects here at the ASF which are only a few steps
away
> from it.

How so?

> ActiveMQ.Net depending on a CLR is clearly OK.

As are Java language products depending on *a* JVM that meets a platform
specification.  An obvious question would be "so what about Win32"?  One
response would be that there is a difference between a dependency on a
platform where you want to run on the platform to support those who use the
platform, and a dependency on an implementation technology.  And where the
dependency *is* an implementation choice, we should promote the use of
unencumbered, multi-source, specifications-based, solutions, not badly
licensed, single source, dependencies.

	--- Noel



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