On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
> offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
> declaration attached to the project.
>
No, the license is that which was granted by the author, and I think you
missed my followup by a few minutes, so I will quote myself here...
"Your comment also hones in on the logical fallacy our VP fell into...
While it may be true that the ASF granted its own AL 2.0 license to the
release package, the ASF is unable to change component licenses in
incompatible ways. And the warranty the ASF offers on an inaccurate
license claims is - nil - c.f. AL 2.0"
"However, if our repositories are under another license, that VP needs to
make public this information, because I never got the memo, and I must
notify friends and the many companies I advise and consult to that they all
need to cease looking at the ASF's repositories, and let their respective
legal departments each sort this all out, if those repositories are
licensed with terms and conditions differing from the AL 2.0."
Obviously, I think our VP Legal isn't taking his job seriously of advising
the community on the specific legal particularities of the software we
create, which is why I'm going to stand pat until someone offers up a
compelling argument over why anyone is not able to take any of the AL 2.0
code out of ASF repositories, released or not, and re-purpose it for
whatever they desire.
But don't name it by "Apache {foo}" unless {foo} PMC sanctioned the release
of the code. It's entirely in trademark law, and our license and copyright
law gives them everything they need to utilize the code, "released" or not.
