www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Wed, 03 May 2017 19:08:51 GMT
> On May 3, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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 imagine that, when faced with a hypothetical posed by someone
who isn't a lawyer, a lot of people would be surprised that what
they actually do for software licensing is not necessarily the same
as what might appear in a convenient marketing slide or press quote.

> 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.

I know, for example, that Capital One does approve the use of
ASF software that has non-approved-by-OSI licensed components.
Ya know, like Apache HTTP Server.

They do so because those component license terms are subsumed by
the Apache License 2.0.

....Roy


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


Mime
View raw message