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 "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?
I'd personally not be inclined to make a blanket statement on all OSI-approved licenses - the list is quite longish. For example, it is my understanding that the following clause from the LGPL also represents a reciprocal licensing term that we do not wish our downstream users to be affected by: > 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a > "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing > portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, > provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's > own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. Actually, I wonder how this licensing term goes along with the OSI rule "9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software". Cheers, -- Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
