Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6CC2009F3 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:08:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9CEED160A26; Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id BB42E160A16 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:08:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 9919 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2016 21:08:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 9909 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2016 21:08:14 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 21:08:14 +0000 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 92AE81A0186 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f176.google.com with SMTP id o189so100081044ioe.2 for ; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 14:08:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tINrcfhv5NP/ola2gk/Arri4Jj50wbXd0AuV5Q1t2xgIqr3rUakfBgFhDdZJK9OckeCBCODteT/5zwBQQ== X-Received: by 10.107.9.167 with SMTP id 39mr13578577ioj.139.1465074493895; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 14:08:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.9.219 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:08:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5EA502C6-CF9B-4DB5-83D5-25280DD9FE2E@gbiv.com> References: <749a6c00d2595a4b39533e26f4e5e0dc@mail.gmail.com> <4F6F8627-75FB-4611-A3D3-D7B1CD0B2575@classsoftware.com> <5EA502C6-CF9B-4DB5-83D5-25280DD9FE2E@gbiv.com> From: Henri Yandell Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:08:13 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Dependency on OpenSSL To: ASF Legal Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eafa8c73f2005347a3c89 archived-at: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 21:08:16 -0000 --001a113eafa8c73f2005347a3c89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr > 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 > > --001a113eafa8c73f2005347a3c89 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Everyone meaning RSA + all the OpenSSL committers (up to t= he point when we stopped asking)?

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding <= span dir=3D"ltr"><fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
= The advertising clause is subsumed by the AL2 NOTICE file when the copyrigh= t
owners are asked if the NOTICE file is sufficient advertising and they agre= e.
So far, everyone agreed, so we stopped asking a long time ago.

We don't distribute under the advertising clause. We distribute under A= L2.

....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 devel= opment 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 defin= ition of
>> freedom. We never suggested the user has the freedom from observin= g 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].
>
> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0Category A licenses are those which may be subsumed by t= he Apache
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 License 2.0.
> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0In principle, Category B licenses are those which may be= subsumed by the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Apache License 2.0 when only the object form is consumed.=
>
> "Subsumed" here means:
>
> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0Anyone who complies with all requirements of the ALv2 al= so complies with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the requirements of license L.
> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0Everything permitted by the ALv2 is also permitted by li= cense L.
>
> (For more on combining licenses see Luis Villa's 2011 article[2].)=
>
> Restricting the licenses of dependencies to those which may be subsume= d by the
> ALv2 allows the licensing of source releases and convenience binaries = to be
> summarized as "Apache 2.0" -- even if the licensing is actua= lly polyglot.
>
> Some of the licenses in "category B", e.g. Mozilla 2.0, have= notification
> requirements such as pointing to source code.=C2=A0 These requirements= are not in
> the ALv2, but if a pointer to source code is included in NOTICE, then<= br> > 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.=C2=A0 And I am not the first person to raise this objectio= n[3][4][5].
>
> BSD-4-clause is not in category A nor is it in category B, and it shou= ld 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:=C2=A0 https://s.apache.org/pYKO
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------<= br> > 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


--001a113eafa8c73f2005347a3c89--