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 Mon, 03 Aug 2015 23:28:41 GMT

> 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
<http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#criteria> and understand our motivation and
then review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b <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