jonathon wrote:
On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific
actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software
Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft
code in a proprietary product results in the obligation to make the
entire product source code available to the public. The Apache License
avoids this risk and the associated needs for more employee education
and more internal audits.
I'd suggest deleting that paragraph.
For starters, the SFLC & FSF are neither the only organizations to
distribute software under the GNU GPL, nor the only organizations to
file lawsuits based on GNU GPL violations.
I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the
page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on
that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy.
Alternatively, rephrase it.
Software distributed under The Apache License can be included in
proprietary software, without the legal obligation of releasing the
entire source code tree, to the users of the program. All that is
required, is an attribution of the Apache Licensed source code.
The Apache License reduces:
* The need for employee education;
* The frequency of internal audits;
* The intensity of internal audits;
I like this, possibly with some minor rewording in order to keep the
angle on compliance and compliance costs?
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
