www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LEGAL-54) Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:36:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12793095#action_12793095
] 

Ralph Goers edited comment on LEGAL-54 at 12/21/09 6:34 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------

You sure are making this a pain. You chose to ignore Sam's email in which he proposed moving
the section into resolved.html. Essentially, this issue simply is asking to do what Sam suggested
in that email which I am quoting here. 

>From http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u

Specifically, I'm talking about moving
  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x
and
  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#transition-examples
to
  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

... while striking the words "transition and" from the text.

I'm open to wordsmithing suggestions, but the ideas expressed below
seem uncontroversial and have withstood the test of time.  There
clearly will need to be text added to introduce the term "Category B",
and I'm inclined to expand the scope of that category from "reciprocal
licenses" to something that conveys the notion of licenses where
approval is contingent on usage.  Perhaps someday LGPL could be moved
into such a category.  I, for example, am untroubled by purely
optional dependencies on LGPL code.
----------------------------------------------------

What is interesting is that in a subsequent email you proposed changing the text to read 
LGPL

The LGPL v2.1 is ineligible from being a Category B license (a
category that includes the MPL, CPL, EPL, and CDDL) primarily due to
the restrictions it places on larger works, violating the third
license criterion. Therefore, LGPL v2.1-licensed works must not be
included in Apache products, although they may be listed as system
requirements or distributed elsewhere as optional works.

To which Sam replied

+1. Good text.

Your next comment was that you applied the changes. But the above text is not what was committed.

      was (Author: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com):
    You sure are making this a pain. You chose to ignore Sam's email in which he proposed
moving the section into resolved.html. Essentially, this issue simply is asking to do what
Sam suggested in that email which I am quoting here. 

>From http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u

Specifically, I'm talking about moving
  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x
and
  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#transition-examples
to
  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

... while striking the words "transition and" from the text.

I'm open to wordsmithing suggestions, but the ideas expressed below
seem uncontroversial and have withstood the test of time.  There
clearly will need to be text added to introduce the term "Category B",
and I'm inclined to expand the scope of that category from "reciprocal
licenses" to something that conveys the notion of licenses where
approval is contingent on usage.  Perhaps someday LGPL could be moved
into such a category.  I, for example, am untroubled by purely
optional dependencies on LGPL code.

  
> Resolved.html should discuss optional dependencies.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-54
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Ralph Goers
>
> I recommend something like the following.
> Change the answer to "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?"
> Apache products may not require components under the following licenses. 
> ...
> Q. Can Apache projects use components under prohibited licenses for optional use?
> Apache project must not distribute works under a prohibited licensed or require a work
under a prohibited license
> to perform functions essential to normaloperation. However, projects may use LGPL licensed
works in optional
> features that are not enabled by default. 
> Apache projects may also use components under a prohibited license as part of the project's
build process or on their web site where they meet all the legal obligations of the license.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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


Mime
View raw message