You will never cover all legitimate fears that organizations might have for a variety of reasons that seem good to them.
For example you'd think that the BSD license would be entirely unobjectionable. But Facebook released a lot of code under BSD with a patent license that many objected to. (They eventually adjusted course on that patent license, though there is still objectionable stuff in there. See http://www.infoworld.com/article/2908879/open-source-software/facebook-gives-in-on-patent-grant.html for a quick summary.) The more easily that you want people to be able to accept what you produce, the harder you have to be careful about what you consume. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > 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 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 "infection" and Apache > can't cure it. There is a group of attorneys that is drafting an appropriate > "exception" that would allow at least some GPL software to be aggregated > with Apache software. > > > > But are ALL other OSI-approved licenses OK with you? > > > > /Larry > > > > > > From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] > Sent: 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 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" <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > Reply-To: "memb...@apache.org" <memb...@apache.org>, "lro...@rosenlaw.com" > <lro...@rosenlaw.com>, License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM > To: License Discuss <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 > _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
