From: Paul Richards <paul@netcraft.co.uk>
Message-Id: <199509211416.PAA17469@server.netcraft.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LICENSE
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:16:10 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <199509210431.AAA14893@beach.w3.org> from "Roy Fielding" at Sep
 21, 95 00:31:29 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 2508      
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

In reply to Roy Fielding who said
> 
> 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

No entirely. You also need a copyright to be able to license the code.
NeXT will not pick up a project that isn't correctly licensed, in the
same way that WC won't include Apache on their cdrom, which was the
original reason I raised this issue. It's not just a question of
whether you'll ever want to defend it, to companies it's a question
of whether they are in the clear.

> (such as making commercial entities warm-and-fuzzy about including
> our code) can be accomplished without making "the Apache Group" a
> legal entity.

That's not true. Plenty of people use FreeBSD commercially. The
copyright and licensing is very clear.

> 
> 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.

I agree that Apache is unlikely to be acceptable as a trademark.

> 
> 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

Well, I didn't come up with it, it's the Berkeley license.
Unless you're a lawyer you should not write licenses.

> 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.

What bits of the original do you think are important then? I'm not
going to have anything to do with some hand crafted license, this is
a job for a lawyer.

-- 
  Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
  Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)