www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Non OSI approved licenses
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:08:42 GMT
I will simply state that I remain a bit uncomfortable with
us continuing to approve inclusion of non-OSI/FSF approved
licensed s/w in our projects.

As a developer as well as end-user, and as someone who works
at a company that leverages FOSS, s/w obtained from the ASF
has always been "safe" in that there were always expectations
related to the s/w... one of which, as I have phrased it
before, is that it is "brain dead easy", legal-wise, to
consume it; that there's nothing in there that would cause lawyers
to get itchy.

Inclusion of non-OSI approved licenses make lawyers itchy.

ESPECIALLY when they don't expect something they get from the
ASF to HAVE IT.

If we continue to allow for acceptance of such licensed
code, and again, IMO, this is a big mistake, we need to
ensure that end users know about this, clearly and explicitly,
and not shrug our shoulders and say "the license is noted
in NOTICE"... we should tag the use of that non-OSI approved
license in NOTICE, imo, so that a simply scan can detect something
like "NOTE: This is a non-OSI/FSF approved license" or whatever.

Just my 2c...

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


Mime
View raw message