Larry, We're not afraid of GPL and use it where applicable. The "where applicable" part is the issue. Same with "ALL other" OSI-approved licenses since each package would have to be reviewed as to whether it would be okay.
Whereas Apache is currently just ALv2 or ALv2 + some permissive license with a attribution clause. It is easy for a Project Manager or Legal to say "if it's from Apache it's okay to use". It's a known quantity and you can trust the brand. Muddy the waters and this is no longer true and a huge step backwards. Show me the case law to prove what you term aggregation is not what the FSF calls derivative and provide indemnification against copyright infringement if it isn't aggregation. THEN the concerns are mitigated. Otherwise inclusion of any copyleft licensed code in Apache projects is a huge issue for users. From: Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, License Discuss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:17 PM To: License Discuss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy 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:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:42 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; '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: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, License Discuss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM To: License Discuss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
