www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:52:41 GMT
We don't impose "our own unique FOSS license criteria upon our diverse and capable community".
We do impose a license policy that means our "less legally capable" downstream users do not
need to hire someone with a law degree to understand how they can reuse our software.

The two things might look the same but they are not the same.

This has been explained over and over on this list.

We understand that some folks with law degrees feel this policy is not necessary. Those in
our ranks qualified to do so even agree that legally it is not necessary. However, there are
far more people in the world without law degrees than with. We aim to serve the majority,
not the minority.

To serve those without law degree we adopt a policy that ensures they can use our software
in any way they desire * without* needing to consult a lawyer. Your  signature line is part
of why this is the policy here ("If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied
by a bill.")  Another reason is that it takes time to do legal reviews. Time that slows software
development and there for product/service innovation.

I don't understand why we have to explain this quote so often.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Lawrence Rosen<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Sent: ‎8/‎1/‎2015 9:06 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Third Party FOSS licenses

Henri Yandell wrote me privately:
> I'll be interested in your thoughts on my recent post to legal-discuss identifying my
current thought pattern for how I see the three tiered split. I think it holds in OSS but
am not sure if other licences on the proprietary/creative-commons side would need other ways
of describing category-B (allowed, but only in these limited use cases).

There should be no tiers. All FOSS licenses are acceptable for the collective works that ASF
publishes through its independent software projects. (Who's talking about proprietary components?)

ASF creates no derivative works. We own no programmers. Presumably contributors own their
contributions. We only collect FOSS contributions and publish them as a collective work under
ALv2 with a NOTICE file.

That's more than enough for us to do without imposing our own unique FOSS license criteria
upon our diverse and capable community.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

Mime
View raw message