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: HSQLDB as an acceptable license?
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:05:43 GMT
archive.org suggests crazy; but we all need a little crazy :)

To Jim's point - OSI approved is not our criteria, meets OSI's OSD is.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:45 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> So either I'm going crazy or something changed about HSQL's license.  Its
> now an exact mirror of BSD 3 Clause, with the appropriate replacements.
>
> http://hsqldb.org/web/hsqlLicense.html
>
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:44 PM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, HSQLDB is not OSI approved, as such, we should
>> not be considering it as acceptable first. It does not make
>> sense to allow dependency on non-OSI approved licenses in
>> the 1st place.
>>
>> > On Jan 12, 2017, at 8:20 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The HSQLDB license is derived from BSD-3-Clause
>> >
>> > http://hsqldb.org/web/hsqlLicense.html
>> > https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html
>> >
>> > However, it's not quite the same.  It reads similar to the
>> BSD-4-Clause, however the advertising notions are moved into the 2nd
>> clause, and the BSD-3-Clause's 2nd clause is split into two clauses.
>> >
>> > John
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message