From legal-discuss-return-16305-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@apache.org Sun Jun 16 17:37:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 78C5118067E for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 19:37:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 56354 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2019 17:37:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 56314 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jun 2019 17:37:01 -0000 Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (HELO mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:01 +0000 Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E96CAE2B9E for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 38D0D2463F for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" To: legal-discuss@apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-463) Can UNLICENSE to be added to Category A? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-463?page=3Dcom.atlassian.= jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D16865= 093#comment-16865093 ]=20 Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-463: ------------------------------------- Noting that the Unlicense is not OSI-approved. This StackExchange link suggests its due to the quality of the license; tho= ugh I'm not sure it was ever officially requested: =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 [https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions= /147111/what-is-wrong-with-the-unlicense] [This is a vague 3rd reason why something can fail to get OSI-approved: "(c) the license is problematic for nonsubstantive reasons (for example, it= is poorly drafted or significantly duplicative of one or more existing OSI= -approved licenses)"] Nevertheless, I think it still makes sense to add it. We don't say somethin= g must be OSI-approved; just that it must meet the OSD. > Can UNLICENSE to be added to Category A? > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: LEGAL-463 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-463 > Project: Legal Discuss > Issue Type: Task > Reporter: Christofer Dutz > Priority: Major > > I've stumbled over some code we would like to use a tiny fraction of in A= pache PLC4X. > The license seems to be very liberal.=C2=A0 > [https://github.com/bkiers/tiny-language-antlr4/blob/master/UNLICENSE] > Could you please confirm this is a category A license? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org