www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Dependency on OpenSSL
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2016 21:08:13 GMT
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