felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Date Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:24:12 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between 
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.

I cannot visualize how ANY software standard can effectively be open unless
its specification is available to everyone under an open source license. By
the time the specification is published by someone like IETF or OASIS, it
has often lost the identity of its contributors and there is no Apache CLA
that would directly apply to it. 

Of course, if someone contributed to Apache an implementation of a
specification, that contribution would presumably be covered by a CLA.

The reason we need an open source license is that organizations like Apache
and their customers are likely to copy materials from a specification in
order to implement the specification. Furthermore some specification owners
might argue (Sun does, for example, or at least they used to) that
implementations of a specification are derivative works of that
specification (even though specific code snippets aren't copied or aren't
copyrightable).

So if Apache intends to implement a specification for an industry standard,
it would be wise to ask if that specification is available under an open
source license.

I leave for another thread the issues about patent licenses for those
software standards.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
> 
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > I think I would get it from the Specification itself, 
> "Legal Terms 
> > > and Conditions regarding the Specification";
> >
> > Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my 
> impression is, 
> > that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to 
> any *software 
> > implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the 
> > latter.
> 
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between 
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
> 
> And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
> 
> Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the 
> clear, what is the problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut 
> and await further announcements.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Niclas


Mime
View raw message