If Christopher is interested in moving, then, to be frank, then I expect him to do whatever work is required to move it, including any legal legwork. This is esp true since his whole reason for moving it is, as I mentioned, completely bogus.
My concern is to try to make it a success here. On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2012 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> As an ASF project? It's not going to happen. > > Not necessarily as an ASF project. Christopher is interested > in moving the project somewhere else. See for example: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201106.mbox/%3c4dfae25e.9040...@pathscale.com%3E > > I would also like to know what the options are. > > Martin > >> >> On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor<mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: >>>>>> My input below. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote: >>>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the >>>>>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that >>>>>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider >>>>>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for >>>>>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho) >>>>>> >>>>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not >>>>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of >>>>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it >>>>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up >>>>>> on STDCXX ownership. >>>>> >>>>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license >>>>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone >>>>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.) >>>>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms. >>>>> >>>> >>>> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright >>>> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, >>>> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and >>>> such derivative works." >>>> >>>> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license >>>> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under >>>> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from >>>> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted >>>> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the >>>> GPLv2... >>> >>> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher >>> asks (IIUC)? >>> >>> Martin >>> >> >
