www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Advertising clauses [Was: Similar terms to AL 2.0]
Date Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:19:19 GMT
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:

>>  >  >  * 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.
>
> The way I see it, the less "similar" a license is, the more carefully
> we grant specific exceptions.
>
> MsPL is very similar; Ruby is mostly similar; Artistic a bit less so;
> BSD is also a bit less so, but in a different way.
>
> Neither mod_ssl nor apache_ssl appear to be hosted on ASF sites?

Coming back to this one.

Currently we don't consider BSD w/ advertising clause (or Apache 1.0)
to be similar to Apache 1.1/2.0 (ie: Category A).

Given that the complaint is not copyleft in nature - it wouldn't make
any sense being in Category B either.

So that would seem to imply it's in Category X, or we spell it out as
a particular set of conditions for use. Which should we do?

Hen

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


Mime
View raw message