www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Artistic/Perl license
Date Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:18:41 GMT
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 9/19/16 10:05 PM:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> I've always thought that Artistic/Perl license isn't
>> >> compatible with ALv2. But when I went and checked
>> >> I couldn't find it on the Cat X list:
>> >>    http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>> >> in fact I couldn't find it at all on that page (aside from
>> >> an exception for auto-generated header files).
>> >>
>> >> Am I misremembering it being on Cat X list?
>> >
>> > Has an Apache  PMC asked to use it?  We historically only add to the
>> > lists when a project asks to use a specific license.  But yes, I'd agree
>> > it seems Cat X.
>>
>> Yes. Apache HAWQ (incubating) would like to know. How difficult/costly is
>> the
>> process to form a final opinion so we can document it?
>>
>
> I propose that it's the question:
>
>     Are there issues with a license condition requiring renaming of files
> when modified?
>
> I propose that there are no issues with that license condition. If we modify
> the Artistic work, we should ensure we rename any 'executables'. I would
> take that to mean changing the filename of any actual executable files
> (commands, .exe etc), or changing the module naming if a perl library (ie:
> equivalent to changing a Java package name - given I tend to think more in
> Java grammars). We should also seek, as always to contribute those
> modifications back to the upstream project.
>
> Thoughts? Disagreements? Should we have a kind-of Category B in which the
> Artistic files are kept independent of Apache files?

+1 to this interpretation AKA "it is ok to use this stuff, but care
must be taken,
hence we need to explicitly call it out"

Cat-B sounds like exactly the right bucketing for this type of approach.

Jim, WDYT?

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message