Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0ACD0AAF-BE23-4039-83B7-DD7519A1CBC8@jaguNET.com>
 <CAL5zq9bn5L-c81ezB11KcC8LN7K4W6oVGBJa1ZHov3-56aq-cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3A0C17C2-F8EB-46B5-8C76-C314CD0D77F3@jaguNET.com> <4D255951-4F2D-4C98-A324-26D9367F968F@gbiv.com>
 <2C8BF102-DA45-4B7C-A93B-AC687366FEF0@jaguNET.com> <1abd993f-f28a-f4fd-5cdc-9953179ae9b8@geomatys.com>
 <86520536-9397-4375-BE47-2CE52F4A8F30@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <86520536-9397-4375-BE47-2CE52F4A8F30@jaguNET.com>
From: "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:32:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOqetn-CC1tx6sYAV_3iqUNCat9JXe+j0DS=xvp3wz-TjDRjvg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Non OSI approved licenses
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143847cbedbcf054e577047
archived-at: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:32:27 -0000

--001a1143847cbedbcf054e577047
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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
above.


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

--001a1143847cbedbcf054e577047
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Sat=
, Apr 29, 2017 at 7:51 PM Jim Jagielski &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim@jagunet.c=
om">jim@jagunet.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
One thing I was just reminded about by Henri Yandell is that OSI is now<br>
occasionally approving new licenses, after years of hold the fort against<b=
r>
license proliferation.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And I believe this is the root of the =
issue.=C2=A0 I can agree, and generally feel more comfortable, using softwa=
re that is OSI approved.=C2=A0 It has been a huge asset for a number of int=
ernal reasons to look at a list of dependencies, say its (mostly) all OSI a=
pproved, and being able to explain the few exceptions.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>However, if OSI has a hard to use process for review and approval of n=
ew licenses, it becomes a pain.=C2=A0 I&#39;m assuming for arguments sake t=
his ignores things like BSD/MIT derivatives (since those licenses are effec=
tively templates) and focuses on more obscure licenses (e.g. Ament Public L=
Icense).=C2=A0 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/c=
annot do.=C2=A0 I think there&#39;s also enough pre-existing knowledge to g=
ive this insight based on pre-existing licenses and if there isn&#39;t enou=
gh information we have to rule on the safe side - don&#39;t do it.</div><di=
v>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Certainly, no one want a return to gobs and gobs of vanity license but<br>
it does make sense that if there ARE licenses that may be important<br>
to the ASF and their projects, that people ask OSI to consider these<br>
licenses for approval.<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t think we should have such actions as an official action by<br>
the ASF, but if PMCs think it is important enough, and they also<br>
agree w/ the idea that their projects should only be dependent on<br>
OSI approved licenses, then it&#39;s an option.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And just to be clear - OSI has approve=
d licenses that span all three of our categories - A, B and X.=C2=A0 This s=
tatement isn&#39;t a blank statement to do anything with any license, but s=
till follow the categories of each license.</div><div><br></div><div>I woul=
d then expect that we categorize each OSI approved license (=C2=A0<a href=
=3D"https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical">https://opensource.org/li=
censes/alphabetical</a>=C2=A0) into one of our categories.=C2=A0 I would al=
so expect a &quot;pass&quot; for the template style licenses I mentioned ab=
ove.</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.=
org" target=3D"_blank">legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org</a><br>
For additional commands, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:legal-discuss-help@apach=
e.org" target=3D"_blank">legal-discuss-help@apache.org</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--001a1143847cbedbcf054e577047--