www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Simplfying requirements for LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:57:58 GMT
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Martin states, quite w/o validation that I can find, that the confusion
>> which may or may not exist are "not solvable through improved
>> documentation".
> If you want to see confusion, audit TLP NOTICE files and see how many of them
> conform to our recommendations.
> I don't blame our TLP contributors, though. This is a policy problem, not an
> execution problem.  We're asking software developers to do lawyer's work.
> That's unreasonable.

On the contrary, it is essential that software developers incorporating anything
other than their own work have a detailed and practical understanding of exactly
what they are required to do to comply with licensing terms.  This is essential
these days because most corporations incorporate open source in their own products.
Simplifying our own policy in such a way that it encourages developers not to
comply with common license terms is not a solution.  I'd rather have a hundred
different variations on compliant NOTICE files than a single one that does not
comply with a bundled license term.


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

View raw message