Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgBYFN4pckLqNJ2o4fjdWWoWDKqoHohrb3uFq9DG2iKvxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3B72@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CACv8bZkEfuiiGeSHE49m1+=ovXo4ZPtMOYn-95_eqN2QTXtUwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALhtWked0YViCJW8r47K44cOd9k15MAuD1fqz=2Pbc0iK27_og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACv8bZn=DEtjELJHggn1P-OUroYTQmTm=XtQ=g-NkgHApVBMgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2AE5FF2-256B-458D-968D-7D0B98303B88@dslextreme.com>
	<CACv8bZ=f=aZtPrwB-Wv6vDzEv1ETqjH92uG0kV4rJoLi3LhCLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5211BBC-525D-495D-9100-4EF8D7B03EAE@dslextreme.com>
	<CAKQbXgBYFN4pckLqNJ2o4fjdWWoWDKqoHohrb3uFq9DG2iKvxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:42:29 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAFG6u8HjT+0YkP65cCeTgtsVR0CSPA8C-Zmp3NE1v9ZQDpjjuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming CloudStack release
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
> It is not the practice at legal@ to provide broad exceptions that can
> then be misinterpreted. I suggest focusing on specific cases and asking
> for an exception in each. It might seem difficult but Sam Ruby
> (VP legal) generally declines to comment on non-specific issues when
> existing policy is well defined (as is the case here). This
> means that by discussing general cases all that will happen is we'll
> go round in circles arguing with each other about our general policy
> of not allowing dependencies (full stop).

*chuckle*

I'll break my silence simply because this discussion seems to be
focused more on process than on results.  I will say that the (often
repeated) suggestion to open a JIRA is good advice.

Background: for a variety of reasons, the ASF is unlikely to take a
stance that LGPL licensed code can be used by any project for any
purpose.  When I first became VP of Legal, this was a topic, I tried
to make sense out of this, and got a lot of people upset.  For those
who are interested, this[1] is how I made peace with the situation.

For the TL;DR crowd, the net is that if a specific project has a
demonstrable need, clearly labels the dependency, and the dependency
is optional to the point where the project does something useful
without the dependency and/or there is a viable replacement -- well in
such circumstances, there generally isn't much arguing.  And I like it
when things get decided and make progress with little to no drama.

I don't yet understand why there is a request for hosting.  Perhaps
somebody could explain the specifics here too.

And with that, I'll go back to reading mode until there are some
actual specifics to comment on.

> Ross

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html

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