Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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 c

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 of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall n

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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 unde

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

7;m expressly NOT speaking of derivative works.! I 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 Sub

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

ssage- > 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 License Policy > > The first item in the Ope

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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 li

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

Sent: 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 laun

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 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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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 Rosen Sent: ‎5/‎25/‎2015 11:54 AM To: legal-disc...@apache.o

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 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 behind

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

On May 25, 2015 1:54 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" 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 not 'our' lawyers

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

, 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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

(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 discu

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

rg>>, "lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>" mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>, License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM To: License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: [Lic

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

ply-To: "memb...@apache.org <mailto:memb...@apache.org> " mailto:memb...@apache.org> >, "lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> " mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> >, License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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: [L

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

-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 ^

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

On 27.05.2015, at 20:17, Lawrence Rosen 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

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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 Res

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

huge issue for users. From: Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>> Reply-To: Lawrence Rosen mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>, License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:17 PM To: License Discuss mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

On 5/28/15, 12:13 AM, "jonathon" wrote: >Right now, if I want to use a software package distributed by The Apache >Software Foundation, I can safely assume ^1 that it is the standard >Apache License, and all I have to be concerned about You still need to read the LICENSE & NOTICE files. For ex

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

-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. Th

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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 p

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

legal doctrine of "willful blindness <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness> ." /Larry Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 28,

Re: [License-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. Thanks, Simon ___ Licen

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

nse-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-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 spe

Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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