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

[jonathon]

-----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 ^1 that it is the standard
Apache License, and all I have to be concerned about ^2, is how well the
standard Apache license fits with the license(s) for a project, or
proposed project that I'm working on.

The second issue is: "What will prevent an Apache project from
unilaterally changing to a different license?"

^1: I know that some projects currently use code that is licensed under
something else, but those are both rare exceptions, (at least I hope
that is the case) and utilize a license that either or both FSF and OSI
consider to be compatible with the standard Apache license.

^2: This is that planning/proposal/mockup stage. During coding, source
code licenses are verified to be what was expected, and what was adverti
sed.

jonathon

  * English - detected
  * English

  * English

 <javascript:void(0);>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=3ual
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----