www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:35:28 GMT
I have no idea what you mean for one or more “companies” to “speak up”.  Do you expect
a communication from the marketing department?

IBM certainly uses mozilla licensed code for some purposes.  I attempted to explain how having
MPL licensed source code available from apache would thwart IBM’s ability to use modify
apache projects and release them as closed source, and Sam attempted to clarify some of your
misunderstandings.  Please go back and study what we wrote until you get the point.

thanks
david jencks



> On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> Ralph Goers seriously wrote:
> > One of the things the ASF cares about is what companies that
> > develop proprietary software are allowed to do with the code
> > we develop.  
>  
> Me too!  Let's hear from them directly here at legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>.
I suppose we should ask only those companies that are not members of Eclipse or Linux Foundations,
or who don't use Mozilla products throughout their companies.
>  
> This is a public list. Companies should speak up! Is anyone here reluctant to accept
Eclipse or Linux or Mozilla products in Apache software?
>  
> Or Creative Commons works?
>  
> /Larry
>  
>  
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:02 AM
> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
>  
> The fact that you still haven’t answered the questions that were asked by Sam speaks
volumes to me.  The answer you gave tries to sidestep the questions, not answer them.
>  
> No one is arguing with you about the ability for open source licenses to be combined.
We do seem to differ on what the consequences are to ALL the downstream users of our software.
>  
> One of the things the ASF cares about is what companies that develop proprietary software
are allowed to do with the code we develop.  In short, we want them to be able to do anything
they want with only the restrictions that are placed on them by the Apache license (which
is almost nothing).  They cannot be required to publish any changes they have made to any
of the software they are incorporating into their product, be required to give back those
changes to the appropriate software project, or anything else beyond acknowledging that they
use the software in their product.  This is a large reason why projects choose to use the
Apache license and call the ASF their home.
>  
> For some reason you choose to avoid discussing this.
>  
> Ralph
>  
>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
wrote:
>>  
>> +1 to some of what Alex Harui wrote (copied below). It is very helpful to understand
the opinions of many Apache members represented by his words. I don't like repeating myself
either.
>>  
>> The reasons that there are so many FOSS licenses is mostly because of other things
(patents, defensive termination, "corresponding source," the scale of attribution conditions,
warranties, static linking, DRM prohibitions) than what Sam is asking about. At least, I think
so. Sometimes Sam's questions here go wildly into complex, multi-layered hypotheticals that
can be boiled down to asking about whether companies like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc.,
are free to copy and create derivative works of all Apache products even under proprietary
licenses.  The answer is always YES as long as the components – including the ALv2 components
– are and remain FOSS. Nobody is allowed to change that. Read our license and our attribution
notices and our source code archives.


Mime
View raw message