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 Wed, 20 May 2015 02:44:50 GMT
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:

> [Going back to main topic :-) Was briefly "Reciprocity and Copyleft"]
>
> Jukka Zitting noted:
> > I'm more worried about the "for informational purposes only" part,
> > and the mixed messaging we're already giving out by suggesting that
> > the NOTICE file has or should have a role beyond the one stated in 4d.
>
> Most downstream users (99.9% of AOO users, for example) will be able to
> ignore entirely the NOTICE file because they won't create and distribute
> derivative works for which they might have a reciprocity obligation. Our
> NOTICE file satisfies almost everyone's FOSS licensing requirements
> completely even by being unread.
>

I think it would be very educational to look at that gut percentage for
other projects before any large scale policy changes.

Commons library users would find, that though they often don't modify the
code, that their use would still seem likely to make them a derivative
work. So there it would be a "(0.1% of Commons users, for example)".

Tomcat - perhaps higher than Commons, but how much higher. Not much I think.

My concern is that the example you point to is not a representative
example. We would do better to be discussing an AOO subpolicy or exception
to the Apache policy, if such is warranted. That can then grow to other
projects if they need, and to the whole if it makes sense.

I'm +1 for SPDX showing up more for example. I'd like to see some projects
try to make an SPDX file for themselves and give the SPDX group the
feedback on whether it was possible, whether it is maintainable etc.

Hen

Mime
View raw message