Thanks, without the context it was somewhat harder to follow on license-discuss.
Consider this a vote in the negative as a non-member user of Apache software. 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. Becoming a "universal acceptor" significantly impacts your ability to be a "universal donor". I have no desire to accidentally be the cause of any organization I work for becoming the test case for what is an aggregation vs what is a derivative. If Apache was willing to indemnify downstream users...yah, I didn't think so. Nice try though. From: "lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>" <lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>> Reply-To: "memb...@apache.org<mailto:memb...@apache.org>" <memb...@apache.org<mailto:memb...@apache.org>>, "lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>" <lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>, License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> 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 current policy. Many Apache members don't want it. Still, it is a serious proposal to bring some more freedom and cooperation to open source. Please treat this as a political document for license-discuss@. /Larry] ...
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
