www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject RE: New versions of CC licenses
Date Thu, 05 Dec 2013 21:17:04 GMT

"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/05/2013 11:49:56 AM:
> Jeff Thompson wrote:
> > I'm focused on a very narrow question of great practical import.
> Does a commercial user have to change their pre-existing licenses in
> order to incorporate the OSS into their product.  If the answer is
> "yes", then the OSS license is not commercially friendly.  If its
> "no", then it is.

> And I'm focused on a much broader question of greater strategic
> import. Does Apache have to limit the kinds of contributions it
> accepts because certain commercial customers don't like certain
FOSSlicenses?

So, I can summarize your position to be that you don't care if Apache's
licensing policies make it difficult for commercial licensors to use Apache
code.  That's fine and its clear.  But, don't pretend that you're not
trying to change Apache's policies in that regard.

AL2.0 licensed code, by itself, is easy for a commercial user to consume.
AL2.0 licensed code, with embedded CC-BY code, is not.

As an aside, your promotion of this "wrapping" concept doesn't do OSS
projects any favors either.  OSS license proliferation is a real problem.
Setting up a structure where all code is permanently licensed under the
original terms means, that over time, the number of different versions of
different licenses texts that are actively used when distributing project
output will continue to grow.  Without the ability to consolidate
compatible licenses into a common base (e.g., assuming that all of the
different licenses provide at least AL2.0 rights, provide the entire
project under the AL2.0 license), you'll sooner or later end up with more
license text than code.  (ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, but only a
small one.)

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group

Mime
View raw message