[Removing cross-posting]
It's hard to see why this Apache-specific discussion is being redirected to
OSI's mailing list and I suggest we end the conversation unless there is a
specific and well-defined question for us to answer.
Thanks,
Simon
___
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:37:48PM +, jonathon wrote:
That is why I wrote: « During coding, source code licenses are verified
to be what was expected, and what was advertised.»
By way of example, if I'm planning a project that requires Big Data
Analysis, and needs to scale up from
-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
[Removing cross-posting]
It's hard to see why this Apache-specific discussion is being redirected to
OSI's mailing list and I suggest we end the conversation unless there is a
specific and well-defined question for us to answer
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Q: Which OSI-approved licenses (including MPL, EPL, and the like) are
*compatible for aggregating* with ALv2 software without infecting the
rest of the aggregated work?
All of it, per OSD #1 and the usual understanding of aggregate.
The OED3 defines the relevant sense
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/05/2015 16:48, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
Right now, if I want to use a software package distributed by The Apa
che
Software Foundation, I can safely assume ^1 that it is the standard
You still need to read the LICENSE NOTICE files.
That is
On 27.05.2015, at 20:17, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
If we amended the proposal to leave out the GPL licenses, would that calm
your concerns?
I'd really hate to do that at Apache for that set of generous FOSS licenses,
but fear is fear Apache didn't cause this fear of
Richard Eckart de Castilho scripsit:
Actually, I wonder how this licensing term goes along with the OSI rule
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software.
That's not meant to apply to other software of which the licensed software
is a part. The annotated OSD says:
9. License Must Not Restrict
@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Nigel, your answer echoes many others:
If I have to start checking every Apache package for GPL code I'll have to
strongly recommend that we approach all Apache packages with caution.
If we amended the proposal
(dropping members@)
As Larry noted, the ASF board makes a distinction between what is
legally possible, and what our policy is. The rationale behind
that policy can easily be found. Larry's proposal would be a major
policy change for the ASF and, we (the ASF) are confident, would
cause major
Subject: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
[This has been a hellishly long thread on private Apache lists before the
board cut off discussion on revised policies. Below was the short start of
it I submitted over two weeks ago. Apache board members don't want to revise
: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:42 AM
To: memb...@apache.org; lro...@rosenlaw.com; 'License Discuss'
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Thanks, without the context it was somewhat harder to follow on
license-discuss.
Consider this a vote in the negative
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/05/2015 18:17, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If we amended the proposal to leave out the GPL licenses, would that c
alm your concerns?
Right now, if I want to use a software package distributed by The Apache
Software Foundation, I can safely assume
On May 25, 2015 1:54 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
An important part of the proposed Apache Third Party License Policy is
that we finally leave the sad domain of FOSS license compatibility
determination to our friends and experts at OSI.
As you would readily acknowledge, OSI are
Once again this ignores the community motivations for the policy. The OSI is
not qualified to make judgments on ASF cultural mission.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Lawrence Rosenmailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com
Sent: 5/25/2015 11:54 AM
To:
FWIW, I agree.
Again, there is a difference between, maybe, what we are allowed
to do and what we *should* do. OSI *might* be able to determine
what we legally can do (though I doubt that), but they have
not a clue (no disrespect) what our *policy* is as well as
the background and rationale
, May 26, 2015 4:42 AM
To: legal-disc...@apache.org
Cc: License Discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
FWIW, I agree.
Again, there is a difference between, maybe, what we are allowed to do and what
we *should* do. OSI *might* be able to determine what we
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Again, there is a difference between, maybe, what we are allowed to do and
what we *should* do. OSI *might* be able to determine what we legally can do
(though I doubt that), but they have not a clue (no disrespect) what our
*policy* is as well as the background and
Hen,
An important part of the proposed Apache Third Party License Policy is that we
finally leave the sad domain of FOSS license compatibility determination to our
friends and experts at OSI.
If we have a question about whether a specific FOSS license infects Apache
code, ask OSI at
: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
I don't see how you are going to do that unless the OSI are going to maintain
complex lists.
If this is the OSI are launching a license
I don't see how you are going to do that unless the OSI are going to
maintain complex lists.
If this is the OSI are launching a license compatibility service, then
there would be something to discuss at Apache. As it is, your proposal is
becoming well trod ground around moving B(inary-only) list
Larry, you are welcome. However, the other link you forwarded [1] has a
section named Can I write proprietary code that links to a shared library
that's open source?”. It basically answers the very question you are asking -
namely, that there are cases where you cannot take code written
used the word aggregation
on purpose.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:07 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen; License Discuss
Cc: Legal Discuss; European Legal Network
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party
; European Legal Network
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
The first item in the Open Source Definition seems to address this.
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component
Apache Legal JIRA-218 asked:
My question is about whether Eclipse Public License -v 1.0
is compatible with our Apache License 2.0.
I couldn't find an answer on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
Larry Rosen suggested:
The obvious answer we could state in a short FAQ: Of course.
The first item in the Open Source Definition seems to address this.
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall
25 matches
Mail list logo
