www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:20:36 GMT

I wish you could realize how much you sound like a kindergartener who can’t get his way.
 This isn’t a religious issue. It is very much like you going to a Bridge club and insisting
you should get to play Backgammon because it is legally allowed.  While that may be true,
we are all here to play bridge, not backgammon.  If you want to play backgammon go somewhere


> On Aug 2, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > It is not a legal issue. We don’t dispute the legal argument. We simply don’t
want to change our policy. 
> You remind me of our dysfunctional U.S. Congress.  
> It isn't a legal issue? I have been disgusted over the years how people like you (and
the GPL fanatics) have damaged the FOSS movement by turning understandable licensing details
into a religious morass. Our very own sponsors participate eagerly in Mozilla and Eclipse
projects, and they "co-mingle" those programs every day. But here at Apache it is apparently
sufficient to say, for unknown reasons, "we simply don't want to change."
> I'm pushing this because FOSS software is far more important to me than your religious
motivations. As long as you and others on the board are going to ignore the law and pray to
ALv2 like some religious deity, I'll keep exercising my freedom of speech.
> Someone owes me a legal argument. The rest is just prayer.
> /Larry
> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 11:30 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
> Larry,
> It is not a legal issue. We don’t dispute the legal argument. We simply don’t want
to change our policy. 
> Why you are unwilling to separate those two issues and discuss them separately is beyond
> I just remembered I have something better than a delete key, automated mail filters will
press the delete key for me.
> Ross
>  <> 
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>]

> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 8:36 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
> Subject: RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
> Dear Ralph,
> It is precisely because people like you refuse to consider changes to antiquated policies
that I lead these long threads. Don't presume that I have anything more important to do than
to convince ASF, in which you are but one member, about things important to me. 
> My 20+ years of experience in open source law and with open source projects have given
me great endurance to overcome license compatibility issues. For example, I led the Apache
negotiations that caused GPLv3 to finally accept all ALv2 software. I have repeatedly fought
the silly "static linking" doctrine that poisoned GPL software for Larger Works long before
I starting participating at ASF; I haven't stopped that legal argument either and would welcome
a court decision.
> But I assure you that until you get at least one open source attorney publicly to debate
this issue on behalf of Sam and Greg and Ross, then I have continued patience. I actually
enjoy this opportunity to hone my arguments here in public. And you have a delete key.
> Not one single attorney has asked me to shut up.
> /Larry
> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>]

> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 8:08 PM
> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
> Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
> David,
> This seemingly endless discussion has been going on for so long now that I am beginning
to believe Larry just doesn’t care what the impact is on downstream users.   Everyone here
understands the argument he is making, but he doesn’t seem to understand the reason why
the ASF membership prefers the policy the way it is. 
> Personally, I am tired of these arguments and wish we would all just ignore this thread.
> Ralph
>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, David Jencks <david.a.jencks@gmail.com <mailto:david.a.jencks@gmail.com>>
>> I hope that never happens and I expect if it does the source code will be removed
as soon as anyone notices.
>> While it seems clear even to me as well as you that when _apache_ publishes such
contributed code all the license conditions are satisfied, that’s not the point of the policy.
 The problem with including such source is that anyone downstream who wants to modify the
work and distribute it in binary-only form can’t.  At best they have to look at the provenance
and history of every modified file to determine what license conditions apply to that file
to see whether they have to publish the changes or not.
>> In the part if IBM I work in, I’d personally get to do this for any such apache
project I managed to convince the powers-that-be would be a good idea to use.  That would
make my life hell, and I’d probably avoid trying to reuse apache software we’d have to
modify in proprietary ways.  In my experience IBM is usually pretty good about pushing useful
changes back, but sometimes adapting code to different circumstances is not useful to contribute
back, and sometimes it takes a long time.
>> Here’s a recent concrete example:  IBM’s recently released Liberty WAS now uses
the geronimo-yoko orb.  We started on this effort about a year ago, and immediately started
fixing bugs.  It only took a couple months to get legal approval to actually use the orb,
but for a variety of reasons we didn’t get legal approval to contribute the bug fixes back
until very recently.  If we had to have scanned the code for which license each file was under
and gotten legal approval to contribute changes back before starting work, we would not have
released by now.
>> As far as I can tell what you are proposing is perfectly legal but would make apache
software unusable for many of its current users. 
>> thanks
>> david jencks

View raw message