www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: on consensus, and serenity and MPLv2 and ECL
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:36:20 GMT
On 11.08.2015, at 23:08, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Ralph Goers wrote:
> > .  It isn’t “I don’t want to”. It is that we WANT to allow proprietary companies
to be able to take our software, modify it and then do whatever they want with it WITHOUT
restrictions.  You have chosen to ignore this every time it has been said
> I don't ignore it; I contest it as a problem!
> Proprietary companies can ALREADY take ALL FOSS software, modify it and then do whatever
they want with it WITHOUT restrictions.
> Will you allow FOSS license conditions demanding reciprocity for new derivative works?
FOSS license conditions demanding attribution? FOSS license conditions that the source code
and license of the original work always be made available on the web?  FOSS license conditions
that a NOTICE file be published?  FOSS licenses that don't include patent grants?  FOSS licenses
that have strong patent defense, or those that don't?
> Why does that matter to ASF as long as it is FOSS? Are any of the above good reasons
to avoid MPLv2 or ECL components from our reputable sister foundations?

We want (and do) to *use* some of these *as libraries* such that we can them *clearly separate*
from the ASL code base. 

We do *not* want to take in *patches* under any such licenses or otherwise mingle code under
such licenses with ASL code *in the same file*.

We want to keep any mingling of such code with other ASL code in the same *project* to a minimum.

If we did depart from this policy, we would risk the codebase being dominated by non-ASL code
which is not in our interest.

-- Richard 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message