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: Dependency on OpenSSL
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2016 23:58:53 GMT
I did not mean OpenSSL, specifically. I meant the things we have included in our own packages
that used to be under original BSD or AL 1.0.

....Roy


> On Jun 4, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Everyone meaning RSA + all the OpenSSL committers (up to the point when we stopped asking)?
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> The advertising clause is subsumed by the AL2 NOTICE file when the copyright
>> owners are asked if the NOTICE file is sufficient advertising and they agree.
>> So far, everyone agreed, so we stopped asking a long time ago.
>> 
>> We don't distribute under the advertising clause. We distribute under AL2.
>> 
>> ....Roy
>> 
>> > On Jun 4, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
>> >> All Advertising clauses are odious... that's why the OSS development world
>> >> went from copying them word for word to building new licensed that forgo
>> >> such a stupid requirement.
>> >>
>> >> Unlike copy left, for example, the combined work is still able to be applied
>> >> in any scenario the developer wishes, which is the ASF's definition of
>> >> freedom. We never suggested the user has the freedom from observing all
>> >> applicable license terms, our own included. So this is obviously (to most
of
>> >> us here) not category X.
>> >
>> > The license categories are mainly about license subsumption[1].
>> >
>> > *   Category A licenses are those which may be subsumed by the Apache
>> >    License 2.0.
>> > *   In principle, Category B licenses are those which may be subsumed by the
>> >    Apache License 2.0 when only the object form is consumed.
>> >
>> > "Subsumed" here means:
>> >
>> > *   Anyone who complies with all requirements of the ALv2 also complies with
>> >    the requirements of license L.
>> > *   Everything permitted by the ALv2 is also permitted by license L.
>> >
>> > (For more on combining licenses see Luis Villa's 2011 article[2].)
>> >
>> > Restricting the licenses of dependencies to those which may be subsumed by the
>> > ALv2 allows the licensing of source releases and convenience binaries to be
>> > summarized as "Apache 2.0" -- even if the licensing is actually polyglot.
>> >
>> > Some of the licenses in "category B", e.g. Mozilla 2.0, have notification
>> > requirements such as pointing to source code.  These requirements are not in
>> > the ALv2, but if a pointer to source code is included in NOTICE, then
>> > satisfying the ALv2 by republishing NOTICE is enough to satisfy the
>> > category B license's notification requirements.
>> >
>> > But that is not true for the advertising clauses of BSD-4-clause or
>> > Apache 1.0.  And I am not the first person to raise this objection[3][4][5].
>> >
>> > BSD-4-clause is not in category A nor is it in category B, and it should not
>> > be added to either category A or category B.
>> >
>> > Marvin Humphrey
>> >
>> > [1] https://s.apache.org/rguQ
>> > [2] https://opensource.com/law/11/9/mpl-20-copyleft-and-license-compatibility
>> > [3] Sam Ruby: https://s.apache.org/H0vL
>> > [4] Henri Yandell: https://s.apache.org/ysGm
>> > [5] Richard Fontana:  https://s.apache.org/pYKO
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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