www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Tue, 02 May 2017 18:22:11 GMT
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> In trading an email off-list a little bit about this subject, I just
> realized something:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> As a developer as well as end-user, and as someone who works
>> at a company that leverages FOSS, s/w obtained from the ASF
>> has always been "safe" in that there were always expectations
>> related to the s/w... one of which, as I have phrased it
>> before, is that it is "brain dead easy", legal-wise, to
>> consume it; that there's nothing in there that would cause lawyers
>> to get itchy.
>> Inclusion of non-OSI approved licenses make lawyers itchy.
> I would only agree with this if we have evidence that OSI is trusted more
> than the ASF.
> I don't think that is necessarily true. If the ASF provides a release and
> says "ALv2", then why not trust that?

FWIW: I've always assumed that is the basis of Roy's position.


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

View raw message