Pedro and Jürgen,

It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons.

There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink 
into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well.  It is satisfying, it is 
credible to us, and it can be a mistake.  Facts are more nuanced than 
portrayed.  It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken 
there.  There are many places where such matters can be discussed without 
embroiling the project. 

A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated 
software here first.  I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA 
operates.  Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement 
without lawsuits at 
<>.  My main point 
is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom 
license management is a serious concern.  Also, the BSA does not pursue 
individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment.  

It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing 
conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost.  
Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor.  AOO site and 
resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, 
though.  That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution 
to the public interest.

The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what 
attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF.  I had not 
known what the actual discussion was at 
 The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version 
of the page at <>.  (Another 
list I need to re-subscribe to.)  A still unanswered question from the list is 
about whose voice this statement is made in.  The footnote says it is not the 
voice of the ASF.

It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about 
other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where 
accepted, in ASF Apache Projects.  The only ASF compliance concern is with the 
Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and 
distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses.  That 
is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers 
and potential contributors.  The only advice to adapters of software from ASF 
Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply.  And that 
interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances.

 - Dennis

PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of 
the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with 
regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects 
under its auspices.  Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are 
viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the 
Foundation for that.  The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of 
the project is also governed by some legal requirements.  I know that's pretty 
abstract, it is for me too.  I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in 
such matters.  I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and 
within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03
To: OOo Apache
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

[ ... ]

I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive
and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for
certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read
licenses anyways :).

I honestly don't think having a "compliance costs" page will make
a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such
things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm.




To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to