Message-Id: <199509210431.AAA14893@beach.w3.org>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: LICENSE 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Sep 1995 21:21:39 CDT."
             <199509210221.VAA14236@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:31:29 -0400
From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Here is my opinion.  Whether or not the copyright is attributed by
name to a living individual or legal entity is absolutely irrelevant
because we have no intention (and no capacity) for defending the
copyright.  In fact, we are better off assigning it to a non-entity like
"the Apache Group", because then we can create that entity at a later
date if we so wish (and yes, that is legal).  The sole purpose of our
copyright is to prevent people from referring to it as something other
than Apache, which is what the license accomplishes.  No other purpose
(such as making commercial entities warm-and-fuzzy about including
our code) can be accomplished without making "the Apache Group" a
legal entity.

Making the Apache Group a legal entity by UK law is fine by me -- any
legitimate copyright in the UK is a legitimate copyright in the US
until it is contested and revoked in the US.

Someone mentioned trademark.  Forget it.  Unlike copyright, trademarks
*must* be defended.  Besides, I hate people who trademark other people's
real names, including the name Apache.

Therefore, I find the existing license/copyright statement more
accurate and better reflective of our goals than is the one that
Paul came up with.  However, except for the phrase "contributed to the
Apache HTTP server project", I do like the point-by-point statement
of what redistributions are allowed, and think that the existing
license should be reformulated accordingly.

....Roy Fielding