www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Wed, 17 May 2017 07:47:29 GMT
On 16/05/2017 16:20, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On May 16, 2017 10:14 AM, "Mark Thomas" <markt@apache.org 
> <mailto:markt@apache.org>> wrote:
>         ...
>         I hate it when people say "Trust me", but in this case my source
>         is good enough that I really can say trust me on this
>         interpretation.
>     I've learned the hard way that the meaning I attribute to words is
>     often very different to the meaning a lawyer (and the courts) would
>     attribute.
>     Is it possible that while the intent was not to create a FoU
>     restriction that is what they ended up with?
> We are talking about the guys who were in charge of licensing at Sun.
> There is very little chance they wound up saying something that they did 
> not mean to say.

Ack. Thanks for reminding me who actually wrote the clause.

I'd have no objection to a project depending on a library with this 
license but the project would need to be aware that the project is very 
likely going to have to spend time dealing with multiple theads like 
this one.


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

View raw message