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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:18:29 GMT
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Todd Volkert <tvolkert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Others may disagree, but before we go there: at this point, is this
>> suggestion moot, or does Pivot still have an interest in including the
>> demos in SVN?
>
> Actually Greg Brown did some digging and found that the demos in
> question were Apache friendly all along (the Google Talk demo was
> Apache 2, and the Flex BlazeDS demo was GPL 3), so we're moving the
> demos back to SVN for future releases.  The philosophy of the original
> question is still relevant, however, so your suggestion is not moot.

"Apache friendly" is an imprecise term.  In particular, GPL 3 is a
"disallowed license".  See:

  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

>From past experience, I've learned to avoid discussing hypothetical
philosophical questions that aren't grounded by a real desire by a
real project to take a specific action.  But if you are inclined to
such a thing, take a look at the following, in particular
"Approximation 2":

  http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html

Given the above: is Pivot interested including the Flex BlazeDS demo,
both in SVN and in their distribution, for Demo purposes only?  How
does Pivot intend to identify and marked this software?

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message