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: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Wed, 30 May 2012 16:41:12 GMT
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:27:10AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I would also re-iterate Sam's post that the advice provided
>> here does not constitute "real" legal advice; it is a
>> list for the discussion of legal issues but should not be
>> used, or perceived, as the ASF (or anyone one, or any entity)
>> providing authoritative legal advice.
> I understand of course it is not legal advice. But who would
> someone/something like Michael/LibreOffice/TDF talk to learn how the
> ASF authoritatively interprets the license it specifically is
> granting?  I am asking out of more general interest, not specifically
> about LibreOffice and AOO.

The short answer is: the license is what it is.  Providing official
answers to such questions is not a service that we generally provide.
We are aware that some have initially found our software to be
unsuitable to their intended purpose because of this.  Our experience
is that such is rare, and many if not most quickly reconsider this.
That being said, many, many, many people do find our software and
license terms to be suitable.

I'll even attempt to offer a pointer.  I've lost track of where the
current Jasper (JSP) source resides in OpenJDK, but at one time that
was based on code from Apache Tomcat.  Perhaps somebody on this list
can track this down and provide a link?

> A copyright/license notice on a source file
> could refer to a larger work of which that source file is a
> constituent part. I'm not saying I would recommend that practice, as
> it could become misleading to some when the source file is viewed in
> isolation, but it seems not uncommon in open source project
> development. Nonetheless it is highly useful for everyone to get some
> sense that the ASF disapproves of such a practice.

The ASF has not taken an official position of such a practice.  I will
paraphrase(*) Roy's original statement this way: "making over-broad
and potentially false or misleading statements about copyright is not
likely to be an effective way of addressing your stated goals".
Nothing more, nothing less.  And certainly not an official an ASF
position on the matter.

Overall, I am pleased that many are finding this discussion useful,
and welcome it to continue.

- Sam Ruby

(*) and like Greg, I will take ownership of my own interpretation

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

View raw message