www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Simplfying requirements for LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:23:51 GMT
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thank you Roy! Your last sentence in the paragraph above is what all need to
keep in mind. I also this this is the key to understand Marvin's point, though.
Quite a few IPMC folks are genuinely frustrated by the lack of commonality
in how different projects manage NOTICE/LICENSEs. This frustration is
understandable, but I think inevitable.

I think for as long as we're trusting our mentors to guide projects through
the possible variations AND folks like Justin help keeping us honest we're
all good.


P.S. This is just a data point from somebody who recently went thorough
a major LICENSE/NOTICE exercise and came back appreciating the spirit
of those two files even more.

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

View raw message