www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:47:20 GMT
Thanks Rob and Andrea, 

As VP legal it's Jim's call if this is sufficient. This is much clearer than the earlier statement,
but it still doesn't " *clearly* state[d] that the page is the viewpoint either of the AOO
PMC itself (and only the PMC) or a specific individual" as Jim requested.

At least one member of the PMC has expressed concern (that's a discussion for the PMC though,
not legal-discuss).

On an entirely personal note I think the new statement actually detracts from the message
and the debate it tries to highlight. The ASF does take a position on recommended license.
We recommend the Apache License as we believe it is "an open and pragmatic software license"
- it's even on our home page: " The Apache projects are defined by collaborative consensus
based processes, an open, pragmatic software license and a desire to create high quality software
that leads the way in its field." I'm not saying you need to include a reference like this,
it's just an observation.

Jim, do you think we should get that slide corrected. I'd hate for that to be repeated too
many times. I'm sure we have many contributors who would take exception to it.

Ross


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:rob@robweir.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:54 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> "not necessarily" is not correct. We do not endorse these views as a 
> foundation. Full stop.
>

Updated with a paraphrase of this:

"The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position, recommend or advise the use or non-use
of any particular software license or family of licenses."

Regards,

-Rob




> There are plenty of people who do, but the foundation does not take 
> positions on these things.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Andrea Pescetti
> Sent: ‎1/‎28/‎2015 5:34 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> HOWEVER, the POV expressed does NOT reflect the POV of the ASF 
>> itself, and so it must be *clearly* stated that the page is the 
>> viewpoint either of the AOO PMC itself (and only the PMC) or a 
>> specific individual.
>> Please make the required changes asap.
>
> I've added a disclaimer to the page, at the end of 
> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html
>
> It's not what you asked for, but it does clarify that the ASF does not 
> necessarily endorse views expressed there. In this way it can stay 
> even if the page is rewritten using a different tone (something I've 
> proposed to do a long time ago, for the record).
>
> Deleting the page as suggested by Henri is not an option. That page 
> has value for users who may legitimately wonder about differences with 
> respect to proprietary and copyleft software respectively.
>
> Now, if the first result on search engines for "ASF position copyleft"
> led to a page where I could see what the ASF position is...
>
> I wonder why the e-mail was directed here. The OpenOffice PMC is able 
> to fix its own website without a discussion on legal-discuss. Anyway, 
> now that the disclaimer has been added, I see no value in continuing 
> the legal-discuss thread.
>
> Regards,
>    Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

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

Mime
View raw message