Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 730D218507 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4719 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2015 03:04:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 4552 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2015 03:04:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 4534 invoked by uid 99); 3 Aug 2015 03:04:36 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:04:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 744071A94C3 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:04:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fg63ieGdJuH1 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 7031A43CCD for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lblf12 with SMTP id f12so70903938lbl.2 for ; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:04:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KguSBOKFUahkVoyMl9DhACRoEKFYD/Kxm9ivsciQ3PM=; b=HjMWFI0+NepEagXqPzqwJGj3CMxjTdDH6c7ZCK9/oX6Y0RerwwyxKKnXNKhGZQaIvv n+r4ZB2lllLdjeq9ANrFUIk+MbMglaEQg8LvFsCtFZmljMO58903OmvvsK9582xqCTe9 o9OcYTpolLbFX5mI/LHjkAylHmq4WwvYe3hx2urNgsCdtGiuMahsuiJgj7wzD6VhxLJ7 2lwIIqd70pXzvMjOiWiLdZF/tQOpS+zyk2YB/us6LXcngiZw1s4xkK50IKX4ogJT1LIS d1aw8XNxvcbQIwC6B4ZBq/LfG9U0R8nGC/vR7G/kQ+xOOh2FlT+uid/k5RZXx3niKdDr EkzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.53.229 with SMTP id e5mr14543617lbp.61.1438571060741; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.77.143 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:04:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <09ec01d0cd97$2ff670a0$8fe351e0$@rosenlaw.com> References: <09c801d0cd7b$53a220b0$fae66210$@rosenlaw.com> <09da01d0cd88$9da8dc00$d8fa9400$@rosenlaw.com> <09e301d0cd8d$d2253140$766f93c0$@rosenlaw.com> <09ec01d0cd97$2ff670a0$8fe351e0$@rosenlaw.com> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 23:04:20 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NysKNScncF2D5XuU3FCWb1NYkzc Message-ID: Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses From: Sam Ruby To: Legal Discuss , Lawrence Rosen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote= : > Kind of mind-blowing, isn't it? All this time we've been trying to view a= n Apache work as some integrated source code artifact that can be turned in= to hidden proprietary stuff. That's never been completely true, and with MP= Lv2 and other FOSS components it is even less true. But it is still all FOS= S. Again, you elided the key point, and are not addressing the original question. I'll reword the question: Are you saying that it is NEVER possible to simultaneously "obey all the conditions of the (ALv2) license" and "not ship the source code for my modifications of code originally licensed under ALv2".? ... and ... Are you saying that it is EVER possible to simultaneously "obey all the conditions of the (MPLv2) license" and "not ship the source code for my modifications of code originally licensed under MPLv2".? - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org