Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 84502 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 16:56:15 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 May 2003 16:56:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 10900 invoked by uid 97); 27 May 2003 16:58:28 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 10893 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 16:58:27 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 27 May 2003 16:58:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 84270 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2003 16:56:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 84257 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 16:56:13 -0000 Received: from latte.harvard.edu (140.247.210.252) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 May 2003 16:56:13 -0000 Received: from latte.harvard.edu (lorien.fas.harvard.edu [::ffff:140.247.212.206]) (IDENT: bgates, AUTH: LOGIN mdiggory) by latte.harvard.edu with esmtp; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:56:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3ED39922.5050507@latte.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:58:10 -0400 From: "Mark R. Diggory" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [math] ACM license References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DavidNeuer@nascopgh.com wrote: >>"Mark R. Diggory" 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