On 25/07/16 17:33, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > OK, I see where you're coming from, I'm just not comfortable with it. I'm > much more comfortable with a single license that covers everything. I also > know that our lawyers would be more comfortable with a single document that > covered everything. But I do see your point!
Why can't the Apache license be that document? USG isn't going to try and enforce the copyright-related provisions in the Apache License against anyone - because it has no standing. But the disclaimer would still stand, under the principle that a legal document is reformed just to the extent to make it valid. What would happen that was bad, if you just released the software and said "This is under the Apache license"? What's the scenario you are worried about? Having made that point, I think you need to understand the significant deal that it is to try and get a new open source licence approved. If all that's up against is "Our lawyers would prefer one document rather than two" (and hey, you can put the statements in the same file) then it could be that this is not seen as sufficient justification for approving a new licence as open source. Gerv _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
