-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 ^
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24/05/2015 21:54, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>At least in the open source community, let's please take advantage of
this relief provided us by the CAFC in Seagate. Open source engineers
should be free to read and write whatever they want about patents.
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. (The
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 real
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 c
> On May 27, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Patrick Masson wrote:
>
> I would also add that OSI approval creates trust.
I'd say more that trust. Let's be blunt: The legal issues related
to using, consuming and/or leveraging open source are legend.
Use of a non OSI-approved "open source" license is simply a
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Patrick Masson
wrote:
> I would also add that OSI approval creates trust. OSI approval assures
> those who may not have the legal understanding or resources that the
> software they are reviewing affords all of the opportunities of the OSD.
>
Listen! Listen! (H
I would also add that OSI approval creates trust. OSI approval assures
those who may not have the legal understanding or resources that the
software they are reviewing affords all of the opportunities of the OSD.
It is much easier for organizations to check if some software is "open
source," guaran
On 05/26/2015 02:54 PM, Brian J. Fox wrote:
> It *is* right, by the definition that we’re using for Open Source.
It is very close to right. A license is open source if it complies with
the Open Source Definition. A license might be open source, but not yet
reviewed the by OSI. We use the set of li
(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
10 matches
Mail list logo
