Advertising clauses [Was: Similar terms to AL 2.0]

[Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:

>>  >  >  * ASL 1.0 [Or possibly here we just say OpenSSL]. This has the
>>  >  >  advertising clause - do we consider such a thing similar terms?
>>  >
>>  >  Could be consider a "restriction significantly different" from Apache
>>  >  License 2.0.  I presume that there is a good reason that clause was
>>  >  dropped.
>>
>>  Agreed. Also would apply to BSD's advertising clause.
>>
>>  Do we have any OpenSSL use cases to pursue this as a separate
>>  question? Not sure how mod_ssl etc fit in with OpenSSL.
>
> The way I see it, the less "similar" a license is, the more carefully
> we grant specific exceptions.
>
> MsPL is very similar; Ruby is mostly similar; Artistic a bit less so;
> BSD is also a bit less so, but in a different way.
>
> Neither mod_ssl nor apache_ssl appear to be hosted on ASF sites?

Coming back to this one.

Currently we don't consider BSD w/ advertising clause (or Apache 1.0)
to be similar to Apache 1.1/2.0 (ie: Category A).

Given that the complaint is not copyleft in nature - it wouldn't make
any sense being in Category B either.

So that would seem to imply it's in Category X, or we spell it out as
a particular set of conditions for use. Which should we do?

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: Advertising clauses [Was: Similar terms to AL 2.0]

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>>  >  >  * ASL 1.0 [Or possibly here we just say OpenSSL]. This has the
>>>  >  >  advertising clause - do we consider such a thing similar terms?
>>>  >
>>>  >  Could be consider a "restriction significantly different" from Apache
>>>  >  License 2.0.  I presume that there is a good reason that clause was
>>>  >  dropped.
>>>
>>>  Agreed. Also would apply to BSD's advertising clause.
>>>
>>>  Do we have any OpenSSL use cases to pursue this as a separate
>>>  question? Not sure how mod_ssl etc fit in with OpenSSL.
>> The way I see it, the less "similar" a license is, the more carefully
>> we grant specific exceptions.
>>
>> MsPL is very similar; Ruby is mostly similar; Artistic a bit less so;
>> BSD is also a bit less so, but in a different way.
>>
>> Neither mod_ssl nor apache_ssl appear to be hosted on ASF sites?
> 
> Coming back to this one.
> 
> Currently we don't consider BSD w/ advertising clause (or Apache 1.0)
> to be similar to Apache 1.1/2.0 (ie: Category A).
> 
> Given that the complaint is not copyleft in nature - it wouldn't make
> any sense being in Category B either.
> 
> So that would seem to imply it's in Category X, or we spell it out as
> a particular set of conditions for use. Which should we do?

I've learned to become adverse to preemptively attempting to answer 
hypothetical questions.  In coding terms, premature optimizations are 
the root of all evils.  OK, if not all, then most.

For now, I'm happy to leave this as "if you want to do this, ask".  If 
we find out that there is a solution that can be replicated, we'll 
document that, then.

> Hen

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org