www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Dependency on OpenSSL
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2016 19:05:21 GMT
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

View raw message