www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:09:37 GMT
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Below you say we are "a limited subset of software engineers telling me what they think
our customers want or what the law and the OSD allows".
>
> The first half of this sentence is true, the second is not.
>
> We are telling you what our customers want. That is the customers we actually work with.
The ones who use and contribute to our code. The ones who choose to agree with our policies.
It is true that there are others who do not agree with our policies. The ASF is not the only
place where open source is developed and those other places are free to define their own policies
(and become downstream users of our code if they like).
>
> However, we are talking about ***ASF*** ***policy*** not "what the law and the OSD allows".
>
> Where I live it is legal to smoke Cigarettes (and Marijuana) in my home. That does not
mean that my wife would allow me to do so. My home is also her home and that of my children.
Sometimes it is sensible for a localized policy to differ from the law in order to create
an environment that is amenable to those it is intended to serve.

Good analogy!  Permit me to take it a step further?

I presume that neither you nor your wife are Medical doctors?

The reason I bring this up is that it is very reasonable for the
owners of an establishment (a domicile or foundation) to set the
policies for that venue.  That's not merely the subset of owners that
have a related degree, but all of them.

It is reasonable for Larry to state his opinion.  It is not reasonable
for Larry to seek to exclude the input of all of the other members of
this foundation.

> Ross
>
> PS Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say anything that
supports your para starting "You are right..."

- Sam Ruby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 2:46 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
>
> Ross, I definitely appreciate your respectful opinions. Your tone is a relief.
>
> I want to hear from other lawyers. Please!  I am tired of a limited subset of software
engineers telling me what they think our customers want or what the law and the OSD allows.
I hope after that conversation you will find me to be a reasonable person.
>
> You're right, though. I shouldn't rely on Sam or Greg or any other board members to understand
the issues from those perspectives, nor should I expect them to force others to speak up.
Quite frankly, if I didn't know you guys so well I'd be terrified to speak my mind here given
your disdain for legal opinions. You can claim "respect and appreciation" and "rough consensus,"
but I simply don't believe your unsupported opinion. And I think it really matters. Sorry.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 2:27 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
>
> Larry,
>
> You assume that everyone here is speaking about their personal opinions. That is an incorrect
assumption.
>
> I believe most of us speak from our experiences. For most of us that involves talking
to a large number of different people from an equally large range of backgrounds. The collective
view of the people here is that our policy is largely respected and appreciated.
>
> We respect your right to a different opinion. That opinion is, no doubt, drawn from your
own wide discussions on the topic. However, your right to a different opinion does not invalidate
the opinion of others.
>
> Sam does not need to "name them!  Or better still, encourage them to speak up here."
>
> We trust that Sam is conveying a well-informed opinion, just as everyone else here does.
We are all intelligent enough to take all the input here (including yours), mix it up with
our own experiences and come to our own well-informed opinion about how the Apache Software
Foundation should operate (which is not to say everyone should necessarily operate this way).
>
> This is how we work. It is called "rough consensus". We have shown time and again when
you bring this topic up that we have "rough consensus" (actually I believe we have close to
unanimous consensus with you being the one dissenting voice).
>
> I am convinced that if every one of my clients from my many years of OSS consulting came
to this list and told you why they appreciate our policy you would still not accept it. You
would proceed to tell them they are mistaken and insist that our policy is therefore flawed.
The end result would be we would still have "rough consensus" because you would still be saying
(paraphrasing) "I don't like the policy because there are no legal grounds for it" while simultaneously
saying (quoting) "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill".
>
> That need for a legal bill *before* being able to make a software design decision is
exactly why we have the policy and exactly why I continue to support our policy. The fact
that a legal audit is often required before a formal release is irrelevant. The goal of our
policy is to enable downstream users to parallelize rather than serialize their software development
and legal activities. Moving quickly in the software world is important and our policy makes
is much lower risk to parallelize legal and software development activities.
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 2:02 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: RE: Third Party FOSS licenses
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Many people, including many with law degrees, feel that this policy is necessary
and appropriate.  This has been validated many times - not only on this list, but on other
ASF foundation lists, and on lists for other foundations.
>
> Please name them!  Or better still, encourage them to speak up here. Especially the many
with law degrees.
>
> You don't like me repeating myself. Then maybe you should let those people express themselves
instead of me hearing you over and over with the same reply and the same hearsay partial quotes
from ancient archives.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 1:31 PM
> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I don't think this correctly captures the situation.
>
> Many people, including many with law degrees, feel that this policy is necessary and
appropriate.  This has been validated many times - not only on this list, but on other ASF
foundation lists, and on lists for other foundations.
>
> A single individual, one who happens to have a law degree, disagrees.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message