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: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:42:03 GMT
Larry Rosen wrote:

> And I'm not recommending GPL code unless it is accompanied by an "exception" for Larger
Works. No Apache PMC is that amateurish as to accept dangerous crap.

 

Ralph Goers replied:

> So it certainly sounds like you agree with Category X and how it is being handled. Previously
you were lumping all the categories together.

 

Category X is non-FOSS software. The "category" word is irrelevant.

 

Your misquotes irritate me. I said "accompanied by an 'exception' for Larger Works." Publicly
on this list I've seen attorneys volunteer to write one for GPL software. That is what OSD
#1 demands, and it clarifies that only by creating a derivative work do you have to disclose
that software.

 

When I said "dangerous crap" I meant among other things GPL licensors who hold to the "static
linking" doctrine. Fortunately that doesn't really include Linux in any way that would affect
an Apache project. That's why almost everyone uses Linux even though it is GPLv2. Linux should
be among our "Category A" software for any Apache project that needs it. As a contrary example,
some companies stay away from BusyBox because that great software can poison Larger Works
depending on who enforces its license. If BusyBox had a license exception for linking into
Larger Works, even Apache should use it.

 

I'm repetitive, irritating, but logically consistent. I completely agree with you that "Consistency
and structure are things software developers appreciate."

 

/Larry

 

 

From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 4:29 PM
To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses

 

 

On Aug 3, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:

 

 And I'm not recommending GPL code unless it is accompanied by an "exception" for Larger Works.
No Apache PMC is that amateurish as to accept dangerous crap.

 

So it certainly sounds like you agree with Category X and how it is being handled. Previously
you were lumping all the categories together.

 





 

And anyway, such decisions are not yours and mine to make, but for each PMC and each customer
to decide for itself. That's the policy change.

 

 

So presumably this is for Category B since you agree with restricting Category X and Category
A isn’t really restricted in any meaningful way.

 

While you are free to disagree with the current policy, I believe most of us prefer it because
it is easier for users. All they need to do is to go to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#criteria
and understand our motivation and then review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
to understand how we handle these licenses.  The change you are advocating would eliminate
that information and require users to look at each individual project to understand how this
is handled. I don’t believe our users would want that and would lead them to distrust all
ASF software as it will increase their effort to be able to use it. Furthermore, I don’t
believe the vast majority of our projects want that. Consistency and structure are things
software developers appreciate.  If you believe that is not the case please provide a list
of some projects that are requesting a change.

 

Ralph


Mime
View raw message