www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Dunning (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:21:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15986941#comment-15986941

Ted Dunning commented on LEGAL-304:

When I first read this, I saw it as a field of use restriction, but that was me going off

Looking more carefully at this, it is clearly written as requiring an acknowledgement about
the original intent of the authors. It doesn't say anything about "shall not be used" or any
such use restrictive language. As Mark says, this is very similar to the as-is clause just

> BSD3 with nuclear clause
> ------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-304
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Tim Allison
> On LEGAL-44, a question was asked about whether BSD-3 with the nuclear clause was acceptable?
 Two conflicting opinions were expressed, and the issue was closed because of a change in
the license.
> On TIKA-2338, we'd like to move a a portion of a dependency that was restricted to test-scope
(according to LEGAL-37) to our regular distribution because that portion has been moved to
> However, we noticed that this is BSD-3 with the [nuclear clause|https://github.com/jai-imageio/jai-imageio-core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt].
 Can we include this in our distribution under ASL 2.0?
> Is this a "field of use" restriction (which would lead to a "no" answer) or is this an
"acceptance of no liability" (which would lead to a "yes" answer)?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message