www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:04:39 GMT
Jim

I think I agree pretty full-throatedly with you on this.  But there may be
nuance that I haven't thought of.

Do you have some examples of us doing this recently?

The big example I know of is actually a counter (the json.org thing) where
we stopped accepting such a dependency.


On Apr 28, 2017 5:08 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> 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