Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9877200C64 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:29:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id B8154160BA3; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 09E77160B95 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:29:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 56246 invoked by uid 500); 28 Apr 2017 16:29:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 56236 invoked by uid 99); 28 Apr 2017 16:29:40 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 76E47C031B for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.144 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.144 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vi22TT8AwbZA for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resqmta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net [96.114.154.164]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 645595FBB9 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resomta-po-16v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.240]) by resqmta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id 48lTdiNolrWIE48m2dF5D6; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:38 +0000 Received: from [192.168.199.10] ([69.251.90.98]) by resomta-po-16v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id 48m1dPkTZEIbE48m2dUEwO; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:38 +0000 From: Jim Jagielski Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: Non OSI approved licenses Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:29:37 -0400 References: <0ACD0AAF-BE23-4039-83B7-DD7519A1CBC8@jaguNET.com> <3A0C17C2-F8EB-46B5-8C76-C314CD0D77F3@jaguNET.com> <4D255951-4F2D-4C98-A324-26D9367F968F@gbiv.com> To: legal-discuss@apache.org In-Reply-To: <4D255951-4F2D-4C98-A324-26D9367F968F@gbiv.com> Message-Id: <8B203691-FAE3-4C04-978E-14F1DC94F3C9@jaguNET.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAFD4NPuK68DhEZ6G5hWuJfDbJwlztUE0UFvQuqZVHOJpf9X7d5cnP0eYvtHGnOmynU4b9wF5aYLlv04cgjvb0Vv3RrS+3pO0tPTwY/bOtMH2Q/iU6oH xBzBz4elp28bg5Nx2iK0LBkCnZ+d528I4wWEcHn5OJKREVPQF9H41VQ8 archived-at: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:29:42 -0000 > On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding = wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 I want to address this item specifically, because on one hand I totally support what Roy sez... but on the other hand, I have a "but on the other hand..." Yes, we don't rely on what other orgs tells us. But we do rely on what we see as "best use" for our users. For example, there is nothing that prevents us from really using GPLv2. In our opinion it is compatible. What instead guides us is a *policy* we have in place. My PoV is that our *policy* should be to not be dependent on non-OSI approved licensed code. For the world at large, ALv2 IS "open source". In cases where non-OSI approved licensed code is to be used, such allowed usage should be discouraged and, if an exception is made, have such exception clearly evident to our users. IMO, we have some duty to our users to do so. Sure, I understand some people will say "If they have a problem with that, so what. Lawyers need jobs too." I think that's doing a disservice to our users *and our = communities* by not being more sensitive that these kinds of issues. Cheers! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org