At 06:21 27/2/01 -0800, Sam Ruby wrote:
>Peter Donald wrote:
>
>>> In short it is not the responsibility of the PMC to accept or not
>>> accept dual licensing. It is a responsibility of the apache members
>>> foundation-wide (as they are the copyright owners).
>>
>>The ASF board would expect the PMCs to work licensing issues.
>
> yer? I didn't think that would be legal ;) I expect that it would have
> to be validated by the board (and thus the members) to be activated or
> am I missing something ?
It certainly is legal for the board to appoint non-owners to work the
issues. Think of it as limited power of attorney if you like. Of course,
the PMC must answer to the board...
> GNUs stance is never to compromise which means that the only way
> for APL to fit in is to remove advertising/name clauses which
> is unfortunately where one of Apaches strengths are
I suspect that that clause is not the core issue.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2000-August/msg00207.html
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
