Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <55507F2A.40800@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:06:34 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= <brane@apache.org>
Organization: The Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
References: <1a9b01d08b4f$9cd64630$d682d290$@rosenlaw.com>
 <73A72F6A-4CD6-47D7-9111-6880E593751A@apache.org>
 <1ae301d08b67$ec4854c0$c4d8fe40$@rosenlaw.com> <554FD857.306@apache.org>
 <1b1c01d08b74$ccb251d0$6616f570$@rosenlaw.com> <55500F9A.3090003@apache.org>
 <1bdc01d08b93$21112710$63337530$@rosenlaw.com> <555019B8.80907@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <555019B8.80907@apache.org>
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAADBQTFRF
 IhsbCy0qZjoVOVRoeFxSAIKBzXQiAKaibYiewnk7nn9z0qCTgL3i87Ep6Kx/+tHBsrE+zgAAAjZJ
 REFUOMvF0jFoE1EYB/CzjWlqIzaTjqVIBifRRWyG0t5iUqlLyFpCeXBgKg5yq6A4degUDJjoUDpc
 1Qt4Ux94B11SOLB0KGS4discpbkORTCn9/m9d3fvLhXnvuHu3f+Xx/veyyfZfLSdZHzgicSfeyw4
 JISwdz8FT6M8lM8Ceg385Dlhs+cC9sQCDn0B78QCogzwN+sxfHGOIXBbRGkNAM4cZymGtgNsDPgz
 cByxon3EEm1TLmvAlghoHOO3CZSa+IQ/vF6JV8tgKOMow78gRgL2/+EIvATOUtB3SSdMg4GXgrbn
 uk0uLiGdoCHKbX4E+t1FUTqn1AtIdPJebssDQ64YANSQyyaQNyUOFs0ijMsMFnOPTahPLXKYowtY
 08MfCP7vR7hRnc5zmPK7CDYYbHcbC7tHuyFA94U/1LYZaJpu/sxACHMwvwZljTLY0TbNk4x+zuEt
 yC3MfCM6uSIvfwur0itFL4FA2Yal8BzLfnYV4EIGwEPAk7o5zIcnvzHMEjwJrrhAKK7on6IrsfRJ
 7A53BhaK+CL7fj6+q/sPeOvcDTtoZTxpUYsFeIknrOXep3p3l7Ua+8sZ5FPQKyKwWi+DfROTU7ny
 C1/9UhpeY7K287WJCzbsNPQm2S6Yk4PSCNhWM2r3nD0K9liYb6yPgCRJhSzPrxUK0yUBVk1VX0lj
 s7MzGZyp0wImMK/e8rHbz2soL+O+2r1dxfGsAmBcx0lNjS/RUhlUC7gRn1wGMdQ7Vw1/AReW/RN3
 xFWdAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------000401040100010502010606"

--------------000401040100010502010606
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Larry,

You posted a draft license policy for the ASF that would, in my opinion
(and probably in the opinion of those who wrote it and those who use
it), encourage ASF projects to violate one of the most widespread
licenses used in the open source world. When I pointed that out, you
basically said not to worry ("be afraid") because you're already looking
for loopholes in the license.

This is not about fear of the GPL but about respect for others' wishes
and intent. Regardless of whether there is or is not such a loophole,
the intent of the GPL, as described on innumerable occasions by the FSF,
has always been crystal clear, and far as I'm concerned, so has the
wording. It is IMO against the ASF's published goals to define policy by
actively looking for ways to circumvent the provisions of this or that
license; that's totally against the spirit of FLOSS and our proclaimed
"public good" mandate.

FWIW, I've not been trying to "dictate" anything to you. I'm just
pointing out what I think is a fatal flaw in your proposal. If you
actually have an interest in discussing things, you could start by not
sidestepping my questions and telling me how copyright attorneys already
have undermining the GPL well in hand. All this kind of response does is
support the stereotype that lawyers have no respect for anything but
their own high opinion of themselves.

One more thing I have to respond to before I leave this conversation:

> But don't rely on the DRAFT Apache Third Party License Policy to prevent the rest of us from doing what we find technically useful when our PMCs agree to it and we document it in our NOTICE file.

1. As far as I'm aware, there is no "DRAFT" Apache Third Party License
Policy. There is an existing ASF policy, and there's your draft proposal
for a different policy (which, being a proposal, is indeed irrelevant to
PMC decisions).

2. I do expect that all PMCs follow published ASF policy. ASF projects
should follow ASF rules; if they find them too limiting, they're always
free to set up somewhere else.

-- Brane

--------------000401040100010502010606
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi Larry,<br>
    <br>
    You posted a draft license policy for the ASF that would, in my
    opinion (and probably in the opinion of those who wrote it and those
    who use it), encourage ASF projects to violate one of the most
    widespread licenses used in the open source world. When I pointed
    that out, you basically said not to worry ("be afraid") because
    you're already looking for loopholes in the license.<br>
    <br>
    This is not about fear of the GPL but about respect for others'
    wishes and intent. Regardless of whether there is or is not such a
    loophole, the intent of the GPL, as described on innumerable
    occasions by the FSF, has always been crystal clear, and far as I'm
    concerned, so has the wording. It is IMO against the ASF's published
    goals to define policy by actively looking for ways to circumvent
    the provisions of this or that license; that's totally against the
    spirit of FLOSS and our proclaimed "public good" mandate.<br>
    <br>
    FWIW, I've not been trying to "dictate" anything to you. I'm just
    pointing out what I think is a fatal flaw in your proposal. If you
    actually have an interest in discussing things, you could start by
    not sidestepping my questions and telling me how copyright attorneys
    already have undermining the GPL well in hand. All this kind of
    response does is support the stereotype that lawyers have no respect
    for anything but their own high opinion of themselves.<br>
    <br>
    One more thing I have to respond to before I leave this
    conversation:<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <meta charset="utf-8">
      <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But don't rely on the DRAFT Apache Third Party License Policy to prevent the rest of us from doing what we find technically useful when our PMCs agree to it and we document it in our NOTICE file.</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    1. As far as I'm aware, there is no "DRAFT" Apache Third Party
    License Policy. There is an existing ASF policy, and there's your
    draft proposal for a different policy (which, being a proposal, is
    indeed irrelevant to PMC decisions).<br>
    <br>
    2. I do expect that all PMCs follow published ASF policy. ASF
    projects should follow ASF rules; if they find them too limiting,
    they're always free to set up somewhere else.<br>
    <br>
    -- Brane<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------000401040100010502010606--