incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Cantor <>
Subject RE: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:13:46 GMT
> There is the one I don't believe.  By their statement it did not say 
> that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate 
> license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of 
> contradicted that.  IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than 
> LGPL section 6. .  So I would expect the board to treat this 
> as needing to be crystal clear.

Certainly, but I still don't know what you're reading into this. Let me try this one more
time. The rule as it's currently going to
be defined will be:

Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free license from RSA to use it,
separate from whatever other license
applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into changing their mind, that's
the story. No ambiguity intended.

Will it be royalty-free forever and ever? No idea. But whatever you're reading into the statement
they posted, I can clearly
communicate that the above is exactly what we've been told in plain English.

If that's a deal-breaker for the board, then I'm simply suggesting that that be made clear
so that the principals can either drop
the proposal or tell RSA that it's a problem. The latter has been done informally, but obviously
there's a stronger case to be made
to them if we can say "change it or the standard isn't going to be accepted".

> No.  Accepting the project should be tied to the licensing issues 
> resolution.  Meaning a legal agreement stating clearly that 
> committers/developers/members have the right to use/develop the software 
> unhindered and that users can use the software under the same conditions 
> as goverened by the ASL license. 

Unlike RSA's intent, the above is not clear to me. I have no idea whether a requirement to
fax RSA a signed document constitutes a
"hindrance". If what you mean is that there are no other terms in play other than the ASL,
then this is asked and answered, I think.
Right now, the answer is no, the ASL is only the code license. Right to use a SAML library
(as opposed to a product) requires direct
permission from RSA at no cost.

> I do not think my concerns are petty and irrelevant as you seem to.

I'd ask that you please don't put words in my mouth. Your concerns are unclear to me. If they
were petty and irrelevant, I wouldn't
be wasting my precious time responding to them.

-- Scott

View raw message