www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: on consensus, and serenity
Date Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:19:57 GMT
Ralph Goers wrote:

>> Larry, item 1 doesn't seem to work.  I've seen the same "rational"

>> reason posted probably a dozen times.  It isn't "I don't want to". It 

>> is that we WANT to allow proprietary companies to be able to take our 

>> software, modify it and then do whatever they want with it WITHOUT 

>> restrictions.  You have chosen to ignore this every time it has been 

>> said.

 

I have not ignored it. I have replied that no FOSS license has restrictions
on making copies, derivative works, or distributing them, even for
proprietary companies! Everything else in those FOSS licenses - including
the obligatory provisions in ALv2 - are simply conditions that restrict
nobody from anything relevant to FOSS - including aggregating and modifying
it. Please use accurate legal terminology.  Please reread the OSD.

 

I know we've heard each other, and further pleas from me won't matter to our
current board. But I won't stop on this public list until I hear at least
one major software technology company that is also a member of Eclipse
Foundation officially say that, as an "end-user and consumer of Apache
software, we don't want any Eclipse components in it because of its license
restrictions." Or MPLv2 components. 

 

I've repeatedly asked that. No official corporate end-user or consumer has
so far spoken up. Quite frankly, if all they can expect is the same acrimony
and disdain that you express to me, who can blame them for not speaking? I
also asked this same question of my colleagues on a European legal list that
is subject to the Chatham House Rule, so I won't be able to quote their
answers here.

 

Employers should trust their own employees to represent them professionally
here, and I honor and respect the technical judgment of every Apache member.
But until someone other than an engineer asserts what corporate policy is
regarding FOSS licenses, your excuse doesn't pass muster as a "rational"
reason. FWIW, those excuses from Apache members I will continue to ignore.

 

That's why this public list is called legal-discuss@apache.org
<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> . Not the "I don't want to" list.

 

/Larry

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Eckart de Castilho [mailto:rec@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 1:22 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: on consensus, and serenity

 

On 15.08.2015, at 04:59, Shane Curcuru < <mailto:asf@shanecurcuru.org>
asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

 

> On 8/11/15 4:22 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:

>> Larry, item 1 doesn't seem to work.  I've seen the same "rational"

>> reason posted probably a dozen times.  It isn't "I don't want to". It 

>> is that we WANT to allow proprietary companies to be able to take our 

>> software, modify it and then do whatever they want with it WITHOUT 

>> restrictions.  You have chosen to ignore this every time it has been 

>> said.

> 

> It's actually simpler than that.  This is not a democracy; it's a 

> corporation.  Licensing policy for Apache projects is set by VP, 

> Legal, who is appointed by the board.  Since it's clear Jim isn't 

> planning to change our licensing policy, many of these threads are 

> moot in terms of influencing ASF policies.

 

I've only recently joined the ASF as a member so I might be missing
something...

 

... but the leaders of the corporation don't own it by divine right,
inheritance, or else - they are elected. 

 

It would be funny to say that any democratic state that deserves being
called so isn't a democracy just because not all decisions are resolved
through citizen votes ;)

 

Larry and or others who want to make a change could well be able to
influence enough members to eventually vote for somebody else who would
change the policy.

Larry is pointing that out every once in a while by remembering folks of
their votes.

 

Anyway, rallying the masses for a change in government doesn't appear to be
the strategy here - simply because the masses are not on the legal-discuss
list.

 

Cheers,

 

-- Richard

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail:  <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org

For additional commands, e-mail:  <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message