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: Artistic/Perl license
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:27:41 GMT
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>

> 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?


View raw message