www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Plans for Apache Licensing Policy
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:35:13 GMT
I'm working on an ASF licensing policy.  

I hope to have a draft available
within the next couple weeks, but I thought I'd start by asking folks on
this list for any feedback on the scope of the document and the direction
I'm leaning for each issue.  Please note the last issue on releasing
distributions under a single Apache License or using multiple licenses.  

Here is a preview of the questions I want to answer and the possible answers:

1. What notice should go at the top of all ASF-developed source files?
     (this will change from what is done now to better reflect
      the multiple copyrights involved)

2. Where should any copyright notice be placed 
     (in the NOTICE file or possibly new COPYRIGHT file -- the 
      answer will not be "in the source files")

3. Who can place a copyright notice in the file?
     (I think the answer should be any individual 
      or entity who's IP ends up in the project's 
      source control) 

4. What exactly is a committer supposed to do when offered a patch?
     (e.g. get explicit confirmation on the mailing
      list that contributor acknowledges that they 
      are licensing their IP under AL2 and that they
      do not work for an employer who has claims on 
      the IP they generate -- might be simpler to put
      a statement like this on a "Terms of Use" page 
      and just have a committer ask the contributor
      to acknowledge they agree to those terms.)

5. What info should be in commit log for non-committer IP?
     (e.g. msgid of contributor acknowledging terms)

6. What text should be included in any -dev list "welcome" msg?
     (e.g. reference to the "Terms of Use"-like 
      contributor guidelines)

7. Should all mailing lists have footers referencing such "Terms of Use"?
     (more notice is better from a legal perspective,
      but I tend to think the other measures are enough)

8. What are the allowable methods of receiving a contribution?
     (e.g. Jira/Bugzilla, -dev list attachments, 
      but definitely not from private/direct email)

9. When an Apache project includes third-party code (any packages 
   created outside the Apache process), what should be done to the 
   copyright and licensing notices?
     (They should not be touched.  However, if the
      third-party code is source contributed by the
      IP owner to be evolved within the ASF, such 
      as initial code for an incubating project, 
      then we will require that they follow the same
      copyright and notice guidelines that apply to
      ASF-developed code -- see questions #1-3)

10. What legal review/checklist should be completed by the PMC prior
    to each new release?
      (This is something I will develop to include BXA/crypto checks
       and a review of allowable licenses, etc.)

11. What exactly goes in a NOTICE file?  What does not go there?
      (e.g. see existing file on /licenses page, but will also 
       add more clarification that it should include no new terms,
       but may or may not be the right place for committer 
       copyright notices -- see questions #2 and 3)
12. What exactly goes in the LICENSE file?
      (e.g. a copy of the Apache License, Version 2, 
       *plus* a copy of all other licenses that apply
       to included IP -- an alternative option may be
       to use a /LICENSE directory containing all 

13. Must all ASF releases be solely licensed under the Apache License
    or a license with fewer conditions?
      (This is the area where different projects at 
       the ASF are doing different things.  I used to
       subscribe to the idea that we license only 
       under the Apache License, which means that we
       are able to sublicense everything else we want
       to include.  However, I now don't believe this
       "sublicense strategy" is feasible.  Licenses 
       such as the CPL, MIT, and the W3C Software 
       License all have terms that either make 
       proper sublicensing impossible, or at the very
       least mislead our users by doing so.  Therefore,
       I am going to propose that we formally allow 
       shipping distributions under multiple licenses;
       however, that will require that the Apache 
       community determine what makes a license 
       acceptable or unacceptable.  This aspect will
       not be covered in the first release of Licensing
       Policy -- but I will try to drive that discussion
       in parallel.)


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message