ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Problems with licenses (GPL, LGPL) and task writing
Date Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:50:50 GMT
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:03, Ken Wood wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > I am curious who would get upset at shortening this to
> > ASL and why?
> We are all viewing this with our engineer's hat on.
> To a lawyer, "Apache Software License" is the one and
> only accepted legal term. "ASL" is not the legal mark.

I 100% agree (though others claimed that there is no "Apache Software 
License"). If we were writing legal documents then that term would have to be 
used. People still refer to Apache as Apache (or worse the Apache Group) even 
though there is no legal entity by such names. Same as people refer to 
Sun/Microsft/GNU/IBM/whatever (ie not by legal name of entity).

I am not a lawyer (hence this is not legal advice) and I am not writing a 
legal document. Thus why I am confused why anyone could have a problem with 
shortening the term.

> No one ever said legal issues had to be scientifically logical.

Aint that the truth!



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message