[CANCELLED] Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

Due to discussion, these changes will not be made. On 12/23/2015 02:09 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > I'm looking at the latest version of the Third Party Licensing > Policy for the ASF at: > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > Here it spells out which licenses are acceptable for use in ASF >

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

On 12/29/2015 06:33 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk >> [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 >> 10:00 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [LAZY >> CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use&quo

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/12/2015 18:00, Kay Schenk wrote: > In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with > a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to > have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if > that is the

RE: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

> To: OOo Apache <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Kay Schenk wrote: > > > >> OK, I

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

sort of thing that Project Management > Committees are accountable for, with assistance of the > legal-discuss and other lists when needed. > > - Dennis > >> -Original Message----- From: Kay Schenk >> [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 &

RE: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

> -Original Message- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:00 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording > > > > On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, De

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

December 29, 2015 10:00 >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording >> >> >> >>> On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>> The TL;DR: >>> >>> Yes, the

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Kay Schenk wrote: > >> OK, I will look for something like this, or please reply to this >> thread if you find something. >> > > I've found it mentioned here, even though this is not a policy page: >

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

Kay Schenk wrote: OK, I will look for something like this, or please reply to this thread if you find something. I've found it mentioned here, even though this is not a policy page: http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html "The ASF only accepts voluntary contributions of software

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

Kay Schenk wrote: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ... This document does not mention obtaining permission from an author or entity It doesn't, since it only discusses the legal point of view. On the policy side, instead, the Foundation (not only OpenOffice) requests that code is

[LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

I'm looking at the latest version of the Third Party Licensing Policy for the ASF at: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Here it spells out which licenses are acceptable for use in ASF products, and which, I am assuming can be used "as is" with proper attribution where required. This