www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:15:33 GMT
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Should the WTFPL be reclassified then?

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message