www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:18:57 GMT
That's true, but it IS OSI approved and, quite frankly, things have
changed now. In every company I have worked for or consulted for,
code from the ASF, and Apache projects, are seen as examples... they
are given fast-track entry into corp structures where other open source
is still looked at somewhat suspiciously. One main reason is that
people *know* that s/w from us has some expectations. And most
companies have a standing policy to not approve/use/consume code
that is not OSI approved or, in even more cases, falls under a
specified set of approved OSI licenses.

The reality of those 2 situations put Apache projects which use/distribute
non-OSI approved licenses, imo, puts that at undue risk. I would personally
want a project to find a more suitable licensed implementation than risk
end-users being "caught off guard" or, even if fully aware, having to
rethink their Apache strategy because they no longer can "trust", legal-wise,
code from Apache. In an effort to ensure that our s/w can be used as
widely and as easily as possible, an extremely firm resistance against
OSI approved licenses seems prudent and pragmatic.

I also stated that if such licensed works ARE used, (which implies
that I am PRO exceptions in exceptional cases) we need to do a much
better job making sure downstream users are aware of it. I still
think is also prudent and pragmatic.

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> 
> The Apache 2.0 license was not an OSI approved license until someone at OSI decided to
approve it.
> 
> We don't rely on other organizations to tell us what we can or cannot redistribute under
our license. We don't need to rely on other organizations to tell us what can be subsumed
by our license.
> 
> If this is a problem for you, then change the OSI policies regarding approving the special
case licenses that others use.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> 
>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 6:07 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 08:08 Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> For me, I worry that use of these licenses will undermine the argument I've made
to my employer to stick with the set of widely recognized ones for our own open source software.
>> 
>> That is another incredibly important point. Thx for sharing.
>> 
>> If the "outside world" thinks, "Hey, it's ok to use any ol'
>> kind of license even if not OSI approved; look, even the ASF
>> does so" it kind of harms the open source community at large,
>> imo.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message