Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: license zero
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
References: <CADVgkyOD_ttPxGp122fEf2h+s-8a3FEm3=On-904df_kW4SWMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKqTu_PSxjuXa3yKN2r7fFhvw=FMKWySeySausS-YueoNsV3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171017232441.GI3633@dev.kemitchell.com>
 <CABD8fLW7NeTjaamqpaAwhbMwZ1WpjL4fTGJSN+KSDMf-Dk6ACQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171017233939.GJ3633@dev.kemitchell.com>
From: Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
Message-ID: <f5910ced-b809-6616-ee18-ff948c20e863@shanecurcuru.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:49:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171017233939.GJ3633@dev.kemitchell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:50:08 -0000

This is a useful place for some discussion when a topic relates to the
work Apache projects are doing, since we do make it a public list.  But
other than general statements of "it's a really interesting idea" and
"it's not for the ASF" I don't know what else will come out here.

Kyle Mitchell wrote on 10/17/17 7:39 PM:
> On 2017-10-17 18:10, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle@kemitchell.com> wrote:
>>> I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on
>>> L0. But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to
>>> see L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation.
>>> That should be clear before anyone's too generous with
>>> their time.
>>>
>>
>> When somebody wants to *use* some L0 software within an Apache project,
>> then it would get evaluated and categorized. We tend to avoid doing work
>> before somebody asks for it. I haven't read in detail, but if there is
>> reciprocity then it would likely be Cat X (forbidden).
> 
> These are early days, and L0's public licenses are changing
> with feedback.  All the same, I'd be very surprised to see
> L0 code anywhere but Cat X.

That would be my vote as well.

Separately, I'll be curious what inroads you make in broader
community-governed projects rather than sole maintainer-run projects.

> The current draft of the noncommercial license has a
> built-in, automatic waiver that reverts the public terms to
> BSD-2-Clause.  Apache may someday see a request to use
> formerly L0 software transitioned under that mechanism.  But
> that's both hypothetical and far off.  I completely agree it
> makes no sense for AF to entertain now.

For the hypothetical, I don't see where an entity can be absolutely,
positively sure that a body of software has irrevocably fallen back to
the BSD-like terms without the chance it might snap back to noncommercial.

Am I missing something, or is there no way to definitively show that in
the past, the licensor domain was unavailable for 90 days?  It seems
like every time someone wants to use one of these software products in
the future, they'll need to do historical due diligence to prove to
themselves that the noncommercial restrictions are no longer required.


-- 

- Shane
  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources

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