www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Mon, 11 May 2015 02:10:34 GMT
On 11.05.2015 00:58, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Branko ─îibej wrote:
> > GPLv3 is an OSI-approved license.
> Yes it is. I was wondering when someone here would notice that and
> blare at me with red eyes!  :-)
> 1. It is not up to me but to the PMC itself to determine that a GPLv3
> component would be useful in an Apache project. My personal standard
> is: Technical value to the project, not which open source license was
> applied by that third party contributor/licensor. All these licenses,
> including GPLv3, are FREE, so users won't care (nor most even notice).

I'm not interested in the technical aspects; that's not what we're
discussing here.

> 2. Most copyright attorneys recognize that the mere incorporation of a
> copy of a GPLv3 component into an aggregation does not affect the
> aggregation's license regardless of some GPL folklore.

Now I'm scared. Waving away as "folklore" what has been the published
intent and and policy of the FSF since its inception seems like a rather
cavalier attitude.

Did I misunderstand what I've been told for decades, that, effectively,
what most copyright attorneys recognize is irrelevant until proved in
court? And do you think the ASF wants to be involved in a turf war over
licensing in the open source world?

> Fear should not dominate our general policy. Last week I passed along
> a note describing a project by Jim Wright (Oracle), Richard Fontana
> (HP), and other lawyers to eliminate much GPL fear by a simple
> declaration by reasonable licensors to the effect that "incorporation
> into any open source project is fine with them." Stand by for
> intelligent suggestions from people who are going to tame the GPL for
> Apache.

Any licensor has always had the option to use whatever license they
please, including modifying or adding exceptions to the GPL. If Oracle
or HP (or Mozilla or Eclipse or younameit) want to make their open
source stuff more Apache-friendly, more power to them; and they can just
use ALv2. But there are thousands of open-source projects out there and
a significant proportion of them use copyleft-like licenses. Do you
really think it's in our interest to tell all those people that we don't
care what they've been told their license means? Surely the ASF doesn't
want to become the bull in the FLOSS china shop.

-- Brane

View raw message