commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <mdigg...@latte.harvard.edu>
Subject Re: [math] ACM license
Date Tue, 27 May 2003 16:58:10 GMT
DavidNeuer@nascopgh.com wrote:

>>"Mark R. Diggory" <mdiggory@latte.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires
>>>a fee and/or specific permission.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Basically what this is saying is "talk to us". ACM
>>is suggesting 
>>involvement and acknowledgment of their efforts in
>>organizing and 
>>archiving these algorithms. I think often these
>>license clauses (while 
>>legally protecting the the license') are also
>>grounds for establishing 
>>'legal' avenues of involvement and partnership.
>>    
>>
>
>Absolutely. I'm an ACM member as well, and it's a great organization. It's 
>certainly possible they *might* choose to donate code to the Apache 
>project. I merely meant to point out that the license has restrictions 
>that would prohibit simply incorportating the software into an Apache 
>Group project w/out such permission from ACM.
>  
>
True

>  
>
>>As such, if we 
>>have an interest in using ACM material, we should
>>contact ACM and get an 
>>official position on the usage of such material for
>>an Open Source 
>>Apache project and the legal bindings they would
>>want in such a 
>>relationship..
>>    
>>
>
>Well, again, my understanding of the Apache project and its mission leads 
>me to believe that those "legal bindings" would have to be "you may 
>release this under the Apache license" w/ no additional restrictions 
>placed by the ACM.
>  
>
Yes, that would be quite direct and obvious.

>  
>
>>We also have to consider here, what *copies are not
>>made or distributed 
>>for direct commercial advantage* means in this case
>>as well.
>>    
>>
>
>IANAL, but the plain language seems quite clear. "Direct commercial 
>advantage" means you are selling the software as a product (with or w/out 
>source, alone or in combination w/ other software), not e.g. teaching a 
>course (for which you and some institution get paid) or using the code for 
>some other purpose which happens to generate revenue but where the primary 
>activity is not distribution of the code (like leasing computer time on a 
>supercomputer which happens to have the software installed as a library -- 
>no distribution there).
>  
>
I still am not convinced that direct commercial advantage means --> sell 
a tool/source based on it for a profit. This is the danger of poorly 
worded licenses. What does commercial *advantage* mean? (Hope I'm not 
sounding too "Clintonesque").

>  
>
>>Remember, the core necessity of
>>Open Source 
>>licensing is about protecting the authors rights,
>>not about restricting 
>>the reuse and development of Open Source code.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Careful there pilgrim! That kind of talk starts license wars (as very 
>reasonable people can quite strongly disagree about "the core neccessity 
>of OSS" -- it's the tension between authors' rights and users' rights that 
>causes the split between GPL proponents and Apache license proponents).
>  
>
"Well, thems a fightn' words there cowboy!"  I can't promise, but I'll 
try not to make so many "generalized" statements in the future ;-)

>To end on a non-flamewar-inspiring note, the correct thing to do WRT ACM 
>stuff is obviously to ask the ACM on a case-by-case basis if they'd be 
>interested in donating it.
>
>Dave
>  
>
See, my response to priorities. I do agree.

Cheers,
-Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message