www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Plans for Apache Licensing Policy
Date Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:05:38 GMT
Cliff,
   Thank you for getting the discussion started on these points.

"Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote on 10/06/2005 08:35:13 AM:

> 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")

Some notice would need to be in every file, right?  I think Apache members 
generally looks at code from the project down, that is, they know what 
project they are dealing with and they are examining the files to find out 
what code is in it.  I've had many circumstances where I have a .java or 
.c file, and only a file. I'm looking at the file and trying to figure out 
where it came from, who wrote it, what license it is under, etc.  Without 
something in each file, how would I know?

> 
> 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) 

The two obvious answers are any of the original authors of the file and 
Apache (the original authors because they own the copyright and Apache 
because they are licensed).  If we are worried about some unrelated third 
party adding copyright notices, I'm not aware of any legal case where a 
third party has added a truthful copyright notice and it was found to be a 
problem. 

> 
> 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.)

That's one of the reasons why CLAs from all contributors is a good idea. 
Those issues are already addressed.  Failing that, a bugzilla signon 
notice is a good step, as Justin M observed.  Including a notice in the 
subscription details of the mailing list would be great, as long as only 
subscribers can submit patches.  You might want to consider a periodic 
(monthly) sending of the basic mailing list info (including the notice). I 
don't know if Apache does that, but many other lists do and its not THAT 
annoying.  I tend to like it because I don't have to save the original 
notice for years just in case I want to unsubscribe or modify my 
subscription.  I know that I'm on average only 2 weeks away from getting a 
new one.

The theoretical problem of relying solely on the AL2 terms is that a patch 
could be an entirely new work (not based on any AL2 licensed code).  If it 
was a small class file, that's not out of the question.

> 
> 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)

Text that explicitly states that submissions are under AL2 would be 
better.  No need to follow a link.

> 
> 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)

Right, more is better.

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

One person's opinion -- there should be a single official channel (maybe 2 
if one is for bulk contributions and one is for patches).  But both should 
be official, tracked, contain the right notices, etc.

> 
> 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)

Right.  If its 'source contributed', isn't it just another contribution?
> 
> 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)

Notices are great, as long as it is EXPLICITLY clear that the terms of the 
license aren't being modified.
> 
> 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 
>        licenses)

If Apache is shipping components under other licenses, wouldn't they have 
their own LICENSE files?  What is referred to by "included IP"?
> 
> 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.)

There's a lot of work in this question. 
> 
> 
> Cliff
> 


Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/ 


Mime
View raw message