www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Wed, 20 May 2015 21:28:06 GMT
Beautifully said and I couldn’t agree more.


> On May 20, 2015, at 2:23 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
> We all here probably understand by now that what I'm proposing is different from the
way that ASF previously operated. But this new policy would allow Apache projects to aggregate
any FOSS software whenever they need it.
> Wouldn't anyone here benefit from that even though they would have to reciprocate for
some of their derivative works?
> I believe the argument here, is, no, and is the reason for the pushback against your
otherwise common-sense proposal.  That would be a detriment to our culture.
> In licensing, 2-clause BSD is probably the best definition of the "universal donor".
 The AL 2.0 is designed to be such a "universal donor".  The recipient has broad latitude
to use the code for all purposes, including incorporating it into other works, without reciprocity
of parts or of the whole of the work.  The GPL and successors are "universal recipients" -
provided that there is OSI-licensed source code to be borrowed, the collected work may be
GPL (and nothing less restrictive).
> We have a culture of producing code that is incorporated into closed works, open works,
unpublished works, and we seek to be the best origin of this source code for any particular
implementation. If someone is writing a "competing" Java servlet environment, and borrows
liberally from a number of ASF projects to accomplish that goal, we not only do not mind,
but celebrate that they have utilized the ASF source code.  If modified Apache Licensed source
code comes back around to us and is incorporated again in one or more of those projects, we
keep on celebrating, but we will anyways even if changes do not come back to us.
> The face of your proposal suggests this goal should be freely toggled by specific PMC's
with different goals.  I (and others here) would respond that such a PMC needs a very different
foundation to support their non-ASF aligned efforts.  It would be contrary to our purpose.
> If there is a way to more clearly blend non-ASF works into a larger whole, I support
that, but never at the price of sacrificing this original purpose.

View raw message