Mailing-List: contact license-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: license@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:16:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
To: license@apache.org
Subject: Re: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
In-Reply-To: <F31D2468-360A-11D8-9A9F-000393753936@apache.org>
Message-ID: <20040107140658.A23429@fez.hyperreal.org>
References: <F31D2468-360A-11D8-9A9F-000393753936@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Thank you all for your comments on the proposed license.  I have
> incorporated as much of the changes as possible and posted a new
> version on the site
>
>      http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/

This is *almost* perfect.  I'm worried about the definition of
"Contribution" and section 5, as it pertains to someone making a
Contribution that is actually someone else's "original work", but which
carries a license that allows the code to be contributed.  I propose the
following diff, leaving paragraph justification to a later change for
clarity, and removing what seems like a redundant statement in section 5,
since "should" would never be accurate anyways - either you must not, or
there are certain conditions under which you may.  And it has the nice
side-effect of stripping out 16 more words.  :)


Index: LICENSE-2.0.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/site/docs/licenses/proposed/LICENSE-2.0.txt,v
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -r1.23 LICENSE-2.0.txt
60c60
<       "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including
---
>       "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
148,149c148
<       with Licensor regarding such Contributions. You should not submit
<       as a "Contribution" any work that is not Your original creation.
---
>       with Licensor regarding such Contributions.


Since I believe this license is compatible with the GPL, and I believe we
have hashed this out quite a bit and addressed the best possible position
between a number of proposed alternatives, I am prepared (whether or not
my change is adopted) to make a proposal to the board to officially
endorse these new licenses at the next Board meeting, which is January
21st.  That will bring this very long process to a close.  Speak up now,
with clear and as-concise-as-possible proposed last-minute changes.

	Brian