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 16:21:23 GMT
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/16, 7:26 AM, "Paul Libbrecht" <paul@hoplahup.net> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Nov 2016, at 16:10, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>I’ve seen lawyers dispute the OSI right to define that a license is an
>>open-source license.
>>
>>I agree with Sam that we should claim that the foundation has deemed it
>>not open-source and not that OSI has, and maybe assert that the reason
>>was non-verifiability.
>
> I thought the reason was the "no evil" clause.  Why can't we say that that
> clause was too open to interpretation to be meet the ASF requirement of
> "brain-dead easy to consume"?

Concurring with OSI's conclusion on this one license is indeed the correct path.

I agree with Paul that no corporation or foundation should abdicate
their role and responsibility for evaluating licenses.  That being
said, I do believe that OSI is a source that we should consult with
and weigh heavily.

> BTW, has anybody approached json.org to see if they would change their
> license?

I've met with Doug personally many times, and discussed this very
topic.  I don't expect him to change his position.

> -Alex

- 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