www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Wed, 20 May 2015 21:23:27 GMT
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
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open works, unpublished works, and we seek to be the best origin of this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.

Mime
View raw message