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, 18 Jun 2016 05:29:30 GMT
So I can update resolved.html; is there a link to where OpenSSL agreed that
NOTICE was sufficient in the archives (or their archives)?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> BSD-4 should be Cat-X *except* for those projects, such as OpenSSL, etc
> that have agreed that NOTICE is sufficient.
>
> > On Jun 6, 2016, at 1:23 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Roy, then Justin:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> So how do you recommend we change the current legal resolved questions
> to
> >> make this clear ow to handle these licenses? Add them to category A but
> add
> >> that they need to be called out in NOTICE?
> >
> > The approach I hope we can take is to grandfather in harmless existing
> usage,
> > including an exception for OpenSSL in particular, but explicitly
> deprecate
> > licenses with advertising clauses to discourage future usage.
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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