www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-304) BSD3 with nuclear clause
Date Mon, 01 May 2017 22:03:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15991647#comment-15991647
] 

Roy T. Fielding commented on LEGAL-304:
---------------------------------------

It is not a field of use restriction. It isn't even a liability restriction, though some jury
might read it as such.

> BSD3 with nuclear clause
> ------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-304
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-304
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Tim Allison
>
> On LEGAL-44, a question was asked about whether BSD-3 with the nuclear clause was acceptable?
 Two conflicting opinions were expressed, and the issue was closed because of a change in
the license.
> On TIKA-2338, we'd like to move a a portion of a dependency that was restricted to test-scope
(according to LEGAL-37) to our regular distribution because that portion has been moved to
BSD-3.
> However, we noticed that this is BSD-3 with the [nuclear clause|https://github.com/jai-imageio/jai-imageio-core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt].
 Can we include this in our distribution under ASL 2.0?
> Is this a "field of use" restriction (which would lead to a "no" answer) or is this an
"acceptance of no liability" (which would lead to a "yes" answer)?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

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


Mime
View raw message