I haven't followed this issue, but if we take BSD licensed source and modifies it (enough to claim copyright on the modifications) we re-license to ALv2, but leaves the original BSD headers (if any) in the source.
CatA licenses are CatA because they allow modifications on source and re-license... Niclas On Feb 20, 2017 04:12, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:08 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 5:43 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > I'm personally still concerned about MADLib's licensing status. > > > Specifically speaking, where I feel more info is needed around > > > modifications to the BSD licensed code. None of that was in the legal > > > resolution. > > > > Can you please suggest how can this be resolved? I've stated my opinion, > > others stated theirs -- but how do we arrive at a either a consensus or > > a resolution? What's a mechanism here? > > > > Was there a clear statement on the code modifications? Last I saw, there > was an agreement for the imported code, but I thought I saw something > saying the modifications were apache licensed, which is confusing in the > current state. > > Either way, lets move this to legal discuss. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
