www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Wed, 03 May 2017 16:03:14 GMT

> On May 3, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> For what it's worth, the *only* reason I initially considered ALv2 for my own projects
and recommended it to my employer for theirs, before I started contributing to Apache software,
was because it was approved by both OSI and FSF. I doubt I'm not alone in that.
> 

No, you are not. In my somewhat "extensive" travels, it is quite
common that licenses not approved by OSI and/or FSF are
simply Not Allowed. My point has always been that it would
be a dead shame, and I would imagine quite a surprise, if
people found out that we include/depend on s/w that is not
so licensed.

I know, for example, that Capital One would not approve the
use of any ASF software that has a non-OSI approved licensed
s/w component lumped in. I also know that they would be quite
"alarmed" by it as well, since this type of stuff is not
expected by traditionally "safe" ASF code.


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


Mime
View raw message