www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Thu, 21 May 2015 02:47:33 GMT
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:

> `Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> > At no point in this lengthy discussion has the AOO PMC come forward
> > with any such request.  As a member of that PMC, I don’t believe
> > there is a consensus for such an exception to be requested.
> >
> > I may be mistaken, but the evidence of that would be a request to
> > legal@ specifying the exception to be made in the case of certain
> > Category B licenses and how it would be limited and carried out.
>
> Dennis is right as long as we limit ourselves to tinkering, one tiny step
> at a time with hundreds of Legal-JIRA issues, every time a project like AOO
> proposes an exception. That's how the board has insisted we do it in the
> past, and that's why I keep trying to FIX this problem.
>
> How long will our list of exceptions become before we decide this is
> foolish?
>
> Here is the question in Legal-JIRA 219 that Henri Yandell closed recently:
>

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-218 btw, not 219.


>
> > My question is about whether "Eclipse Public License -v 1.0"
> > is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
> > I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>
> The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: "Of course. All FOSS
> licenses are compatible for aggregations."
>

I'm not sure what the point of this is as an example, beyond that the page
says 'EPL 1.0' and the requester, I suspect, only searched for 'Eclipse'.
Boring stuff that doesn't make much point for you.

Also noting that it was resolved quickly; my update was merely to move a
Resolved issue to a Closed issue.

Hen

Mime
View raw message