www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Wed, 03 May 2017 12:54:25 GMT
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.

These groups are excellent proxies for what is "well-known" and "widely
accepted" (I'm not aware of a better source, anyway). If those qualities
matter at all to the ASF, then it makes sense to strongly prefer licenses
approved by these groups over legally-equivalent ones which are relatively
unknown. (Admittedly, I don't know what form this "preference" should take.)

I think any decision we make to restrict (or just "prefer") another group's
approved licenses is still our own decision. So, I don't think it makes
them them the "license arbiter for Apache" any more than the choice to
follow the Google Style Guide makes Google the style arbiter or the choice
to follow Semver 2.0.0 makes semver.org the API arbiter.

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:15 PM Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with Apache forbidding
> a license that OSI has actually reviewed and evaluated as
> "not open source" (as defined by the OSD), assuming that still matches
> our definition of open source.  I have a problem with defining OSI
> as the license arbiter for Apache, particularly for licenses that OSI
> have chosen not to approve for many reasons unrelated to the OSD,
> including guidance from their primary sponsors for avoiding
> "license proliferation" and a general, persistent desire to make it
> easier to absorb smaller projects into larger works under the GPL.
> OSI was created for the sake of commercial redistributions of free
> and open source software. That's what the OSD is really all about:
> making it possible for Debian, Slack, SuSE, RedHat, and others to
> compile a royalty-free software distribution, perhaps charging money
> for the convenience, without running afoul of the usual copyright
> concerns and without invoking the negative "marketing power" of the
> FSF and RMS.
> OSI is not, and never has been, a promoter of open development for
> the communities who actually do that development, even though some
> of their board members (like Jim) are chosen because of their
> strong involvement in and around those communities.  We are the
> experts on (at least) one right way to build open source.
> ....Roy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message