www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:53:09 GMT
Larry wrote:  " All I've said is that you MUST COMPLY with the license conditions of any code
you modify."

IMO, there appears to be several popular Open Source licenses.  To my simple mind, the set
of things you must comply with must differ amongst these Open Source licenses in legally significant
ways, otherwise there wouldn’t be more than one or two of them.

The ASF as chosen to divide these licenses into three sets based upon the set of things you
must comply with.  The foundation has a right to do so.  It is fine to hear you propose that
we change that.  So far, I don’t hear any support for change.

IMO, it doesn’t matter so much what lawyers think.  What matters is public perception. 
If you advertise that your restaurant serves healthy food for everyone, you might not want
to use GMO ingredients not because it isn’t safe or healthy, but because there is enough
public fear about it.  IMO, GPL=GMO.  And maybe, MPL=non-organic.   The folks who we’ve
elected to decide this sort of stuff have decided not to take not the burden of changing public
perception and just making sure we don’t use certain ingredients so folks can come in and
eat a meal without having to scan the ingredients list thoroughly or pay a specialist to investigate
it.

What I’d like to see going forward on this topic is the following:

  1.  Changes to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html to be more specific about the ASF’s
perspective on this topic which clearly has become a FAQ, even if it is just Larry frequently
asking the question.  The new words should include the ASF’s position about being a universal
donor, and avoiding the need for specialists/legal folks when folks want to use ASF works.
 Also, maybe more detail on what it is about MPL and EPL that keep them in Category B.
  2.  Larry is welcome to re-raise this topic on occasion, but hopefully not too often, but
certainly if he can bring new information to the topic such as a statement from another attorney
that might affect our categorization of a particular license.  But otherwise, the goal of
the changes I am suggesting above is that instead of folks trying to spend dozens of emails
debating Larry, that we just point to this new section of the FAQ, and invite folks who normally
do not respond on these threads to speak up if they think the new information Larry provides
deserve the energy spent debating this topic.  It doesn’t make sense to me to spend this
much energy trying to convince one person until you have evidence there is more than one person
that needs convincing.  New members who may not be aware of the ASF’s position can just
follow the link and hopefully understand why we are where we are without all of this re-hashing.

Thanks,
-Alex

From: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>,
"lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
Date: Monday, August 3, 2015 at 8:07 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <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


> It is too late at night for me to analyze compound questions.



No problem.  It would be helpful if you were to answer those questions before you make any
further requests to change the ASF 3rd party licensing policy.



Sure. I repeat: " All I've said is that you MUST COMPLY with the license conditions of any
code you modify."



/Larry



Lawrence Rosen

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





-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 8:41 PM
To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>;
Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses



On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
wrote:

> Sam Ruby said:

>> ... and ...

>

> It is too late at night for me to analyze compound questions.



No problem.  It would be helpful if you were to answer those questions before you make any
further requests to change the ASF 3rd party licensing policy.



- Sam Ruby



---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>

For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
Mime
View raw message