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: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Mon, 11 May 2015 15:14:08 GMT
One reason why Apache communities are strong is because we have consistency in our policies
across all projects. The licensing policy tells me that, as an adopter of ASF code, I can
make any modifications I need to, whether in ASF code or in a dependency, and I will not trigger
a reciprocity clause.

The critical thing here is "whether in ASF code or a dependency".

Under this proposal this important community benefit goes away. At the ASF we are for community
over code. When considering adjustments to our existing policies we should not forget this.

Furthermore, under this proposal, where individual PMCs decide on local policy, we end up
with some ASF projects not being able to use some other ASF code. Since our foundation is
a "community if communities" we should be wary of such a policy change which creates barriers
between our communities.

I find the proposal in its current form unacceptable for these reasons. That said,  if a specific
project has a specific issue it wants to address then we should discuss that issue rather
than a broad sweeping policy that undermines the very foundations of our foundation.


Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Lawrence Rosen<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Sent: ‎5/‎10/‎2015 7:35 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

Don't be scared, Brane. I'm not trying to get you or Apache involved in some lawsuit. If YOU
are afraid of the GPL, then don't incorporate such components in your projects. But don't
dictate a GPL policy for MY project. Point of evidence: AOO already includes GPL dictionaries
in its distributed Apache software. I bet nobody gives a damn.


From: Branko ?ibej [mailto:brane@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 7:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

On 11.05.2015 00:58, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Branko ?ibej 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