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 16:29:37 GMT

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

I want to address this item specifically, because on one hand I
totally support what Roy sez... but on the other hand, I have
a "but on the other hand..."

Yes, we don't rely on what other orgs tells us. But we do rely on
what we see as "best use" for our users. For example, there is
nothing that prevents us from really using GPLv2. In our opinion
it is compatible. What instead guides us is a *policy* we have
in place.

My PoV is that our *policy* should be to not be dependent on non-OSI
approved licensed code. For the world at large, ALv2 IS "open source".
In cases where non-OSI approved licensed code is to be used, such
allowed usage should be discouraged and, if an exception is made,
have such exception clearly evident to our users. IMO, we have
some duty to our users to do so. Sure, I understand some people will
say "If they have a problem with that, so what. Lawyers need jobs
too." I think that's doing a disservice to our users *and our communities*
by not being more sensitive that these kinds of issues.

Cheers!



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


Mime
View raw message