This really sounds like a case where we probably all actually agree. Jim said "a bit uncomfortable". Roy says (paraphrasing massively) "reality strikes".  

These sound like they are a lot the same. OSI approval should make approval easier. Exceptions where social purpose licenses will need examination on occasion. 

Highlighting surprises for our downstream consumers sounds like a great idea.  

On Apr 28, 2017 9:10 AM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
The Apache 2.0 license was not an OSI approved license until someone at OSI decided to approve it.

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.

If this is a problem for you, then change the OSI policies regarding approving the special case licenses that others use.

....Roy


> On Apr 28, 2017, at 6:07 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 08:08 Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> For me, I worry that use of these licenses will undermine the argument I've made to my employer to stick with the set of widely recognized ones for our own open source software.
>
> That is another incredibly important point. Thx for sharing.
>
> If the "outside world" thinks, "Hey, it's ok to use any ol'
> kind of license even if not OSI approved; look, even the ASF
> does so" it kind of harms the open source community at large,
> imo.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


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