www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: Similar terms to AL 2.0
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:41:51 GMT
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

True enough, for some reason I interpreted it differently on first read. I'm
not sure it's that much of a problem though, as everything can be an
aggregation. But this discussion can wait, premature optimization...

Thanks!
Matthieu


>
> Hen
>

Mime
View raw message