www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Wed, 03 May 2017 18:25:25 GMT

On 5/3/17, 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 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.

OK, I don't think I'm hearing disagreement.  To try to close this out, in
[1], we recommend the following in LICENSE:

    This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is
    available under a <Cat-A> license.  For
    details, see deps/superwidget/.

Can we agree to require that non-OSI approved licenses that this mailing
list has agreed is Cat-A use the following:

    This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is
    available under a non-OSI-approved <Cat-A> license.
    For details, see deps/superwidget/.


[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

View raw message