The content of a release and the downstream limitations on field of use are not a matter of legal shield. It has always been the case that the fundamental promise of Apache has been that Apache software is easy and safe to adopt and use.
Easy and safe meaning that you won't have nasty surprises like somebody suing you for "being evil" or, worse, having your own lawyers veto a critical release because a dependency of a dependency is GPL licensed or is restricted from being used in anything that competes with smart plumbing accessories. Getting the foundation to relax that attitude of no downstream restrictions is going to be nearly impossible. On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion on relaxing requirements, but I don't > recall any long-time ASF person explaining how fragile or durable the > legal-shield and the insurance rates for it are. > > ... > > Unless someone can explain why that would ruin the legal-shield or raise > insurance rates, I think that would save lots of community time getting > releases out. Otherwise, we might be expending precious energy > overzealously trying to protect a legal-shield that doesn't need that level > of protection. > > Does anybody truly know what will and will not ruin the legal-shield? I > have to imagine that releases have been shipped by the ASF and later found > to be non-compliant with policy and that didn't ruin the legal shield or > raise insurance rates. >
