www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:32:13 GMT
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 7:51 PM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> One thing I was just reminded about by Henri Yandell is that OSI is now
> occasionally approving new licenses, after years of hold the fort against
> license proliferation.
And I believe this is the root of the issue.  I can agree, and generally
feel more comfortable, using software that is OSI approved.  It has been a
huge asset for a number of internal reasons to look at a list of
dependencies, say its (mostly) all OSI approved, and being able to explain
the few exceptions.

However, if OSI has a hard to use process for review and approval of new
licenses, it becomes a pain.  I'm assuming for arguments sake this ignores
things like BSD/MIT derivatives (since those licenses are effectively
templates) and focuses on more obscure licenses (e.g. Ament Public
LIcense).  I do feel in the case where OSI has not ruled, it is on ASF
legal to provide a ruling on behalf of a project indicating what they
can/cannot do.  I think there's also enough pre-existing knowledge to give
this insight based on pre-existing licenses and if there isn't enough
information we have to rule on the safe side - don't do it.

> Certainly, no one want a return to gobs and gobs of vanity license but
> it does make sense that if there ARE licenses that may be important
> to the ASF and their projects, that people ask OSI to consider these
> licenses for approval.
> I don't think we should have such actions as an official action by
> the ASF, but if PMCs think it is important enough, and they also
> agree w/ the idea that their projects should only be dependent on
> OSI approved licenses, then it's an option.
And just to be clear - OSI has approved licenses that span all three of our
categories - A, B and X.  This statement isn't a blank statement to do
anything with any license, but still follow the categories of each license.

I would then expect that we categorize each OSI approved license (
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ) into one of our categories.
I would also expect a "pass" for the template style licenses I mentioned

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

View raw message