Thank you! I've subscribed to legal-disc...@apache.org and will be bringing up our license there shortly. And thank you for all your points, assuming you don't mind, I'll bring them up at legal-disc...@apache.org as well.
Thanks, Cem Karan > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Eckart de Castilho > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:56 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research > Laboratory Open Source License proposal > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > ---- > > Hi Cem, > > > On 25.07.2016, at 18:41, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > > <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil> wrote: > > > > OK at this point I want to start another discussion about the license > > (attached once again, with the minor correction of stripping out the > > word 'Apache', which I'd left in earlier). Is the license compatible > > with Apache > > 2.0 and the licenses that Apache 2.0 is compatible with? If not, why not? > > This list is IMHO not the right place to ask whether your license would be > compatible with the Apache License 2.0. You should post that > question on the legal-discuss list of Apache (legal-disc...@apache.org). > > Mind there have been requests to Apache from USG-affiliated people > requesting the Apache license to be changed - these have been > discussed but rejected. Your approach to create a new license seems kind of > novel in that respect. > > When it comes to compatibility, the question is what you actually mean by > that. > I see multiple questions: > > - Is there any conflict between the terms in your license and the Apache > license? > > - If there are conflicts, are they one-way? I.e. can at least a work under > your > license include code under the Apache license or vice versa? > > Finally there is a policy question. If your desire is that Apache (or > parties following the Apache-view of third-party license management) > should be able to make used of code under your license, then you should > check out this page: > > Caution-http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > > If you can get Apache to add your license to that list under "considered to > be similar", that should be a strong blessing. > > If you bring up the topic with Apache, I would recommend you state your > expectations/wishes regarding license compatibility and policy > separately trying to avoid the two aspects to be mingled up in the > discussion. > > Best, > > -- Richard > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss