www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Thomas (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Reopened] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:04:04 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Mark Thomas reopened LEGAL-304:
-------------------------------

I'm re-opening this because the V.P. Legal post is vacant and decisions such as this need
to be signed off by V.P. Legal. If urgent, it can be escalated to the board for a decision.

> 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
BSD-3.
> 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
(v6.3.15#6346)

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


Mime
View raw message