Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 90670 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2008 19:26:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2008 19:26:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 82686 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2008 19:26:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 82477 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2008 19:26:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 82466 invoked by uid 99); 20 Mar 2008 19:26:45 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:26:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates 209.85.146.177 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.146.177] (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.177) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:26:06 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m28so1207107wag.13 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:26:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=33309+Hr/2Lg8EUV0t4Ssj1sznVl5VjeSi/qC8Ap8Ds=; b=RjztRb4gmsKReEdQyym+g6W8Hr4ewyRJmuclFQipnV/ftU0DHyHL5JCeC2T+iPH8MR9CNXROm3keFJ9mvGRRnrzVFbJWBe8dforYk+V6Spe40ejooZc6VHVncQalBfPduzXclLd5piGfOnUEE4AqhWcGWDjJd7O0Wym1yGWu6Jw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Ro3fKFgBhD/s28wNxPbLtEY2Fj4gCyku5JLo57HtaXyoYth9+9phPbxlVTvscmMNBXG14jocHki7BPnTVu1xojq5QtBdACxvjg0F1tBb1AXVCYVtOoVL5iG9BJDWpJ87ywyFrZHFBe585IwwLbYr16Kn0D1zXxTjLvctQms2WZQ= Received: by 10.114.150.1 with SMTP id x1mr4318029wad.46.1206041177623; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.89.15 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2d12b2f00803201226i6def4d9dw34d457f44906f54f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:26:17 -0700 From: "Henri Yandell" Sender: hyandell@gmail.com To: "Sam Ruby" Subject: Re: Similar terms to AL 2.0 Cc: "Legal Discuss" In-Reply-To: <3d4032300803201047ob4b63cdg2f435d68055a62d1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2d12b2f00803200818s4a35d080ifac13904a1737e4@mail.gmail.com> <3d4032300803201047ob4b63cdg2f435d68055a62d1@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: fe6ef48afffc2f70 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Henri Yandell 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?'. > > * 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. 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 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