www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:10:04 GMT

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@apache.org> wrote:
>> As compelling as that is, the fact is that the JSON license
>> itself is not OSI approved and is therefore not, by definition,
>> an "Open Source license" and, as such, cannot be considered as
>> one which is acceptable as related to categories.
> Just a small note, the WTFPL is not OSI approved.  While I agree with
> the recategorization of the JSON license; and the fact that we should
> take into consideration the evaluation of what OSI and others make of
> licenses; I don't think we should gate any of our decisions on an
> external entity.

Something can't be called Open Source unless it is, well, Open Source
and OSI (and the FSF) are the ones who determine what is and is not.

Again, this comes down to the basic tenet that we want consumption and
usage of ASF projects to be as "brain dead easy" as possible. By having
a non-OSI license in there, it encourages the legal dept to get
involved, which disrupts that "easy as possible" meme.

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

View raw message