Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83022 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2005 00:08:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Nov 2005 00:08:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 30917 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2005 00:08:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 30776 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2005 00:08:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 30765 invoked by uid 99); 29 Nov 2005 00:08:06 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:08:06 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [216.173.237.167] (HELO mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com) (216.173.237.167) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:09:36 -0800 Received: from mx02.stngva01.us.mxservers.net (204.202.242.66) by mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id 1-073592856 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.rosenlaw.com [216.173.242.124] (EHLO RosenLaptop) by mx02.stngva01.us.mxservers.net (mxl_mta-1.3.8-10p4) with ESMTP id 8cb9b834.11537.072.mx02.stngva01.us.mxservers.net; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:07:36 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Lawrence Rosen" To: "'Legal Discuss'" Subject: RE: Proposed header text at the top of each LICENSE file Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:07:26 -0800 Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0515_01C5F435.D4A563E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcX0dDYKJQH5TiCUQreRF4TQ/MPKOQAA9Ukg X-Spam: [F=0.0043103448; heur=0.500(-700); stat=0.010; spamtraq-heur=0.300(2005112111)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [216.173.242.124] Message-ID: <20051128190738.GA7359@mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com> X-Loop-Detect: 1 X-DistLoop-Detect: 1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_NextPart_000_0515_01C5F435.D4A563E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't see how we're representing that. Whoever contributed the code under the Apache license (if anyone) would be making a patent grant, but I don't recall Apache ever claiming that it had the ability to go find everyone who has contributed copyrightable code to old BSD projects and get patent grants. Frankly, I think that would be a waste of time. And I don't see anything in the ASLv2 that requires it. Asserting that "this software is licensed under the ALv2" is a little misleading. We must at least make it clear that some of the components of that collective work were licensed to us under other licenses, including the BSD. That, I believe, is all that Cliff is suggesting. But you're right to point out that we don't need to look backwards to correct old information. Let's just do it right going forward. /Larry _____ From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 3:34 PM To: Cliff Schmidt Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Legal Discuss Subject: Re: Proposed header text at the top of each LICENSE file Cliff Schmidt wrote on 11/28/2005 05:40:17 PM: > On Nov 24, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote: > > > I had thought that the approach that we were going to use was to > > have the base distribution of any Apache project licensed under the > > ASL, and that there would optionally be available for download add- > > ons and non-core technology under other licenses (such as MPL, CPL, > > etc.). > > > > If that's the case, then the license file is much easier. Its > > ASL. And for any other components, there would be a single LICENSE > > file describing the license. That would be easiest. > > Unfortunately, I no longer think this is feasible. There was a time > when I thought that the ASF could limit its distributions to include > only software under the Apache License. I thought that nearly all > third-party components that we currently distribute could be > sublicensed under the Apache License. Before even getting into the > question of how critical CPL and MPL-licensed binary components are > to today's ASF distributions, let's take an extreme example: do you > think it's appropriate for the ASF to relicense a BSD-licensed > component under the Apache License? Aren't we now representing that > the contributors of that code have offered an explicit patent grant > and revocation condition? I don't see how we're representing that. Whoever contributed the code under the Apache license (if anyone) would be making a patent grant, but I don't recall Apache ever claiming that it had the ability to go find everyone who has contributed copyrightable code to old BSD projects and get patent grants. Frankly, I think that would be a waste of time. And I don't see anything in the ASLv2 that requires it. BTW, I'm working on trying to get to San Diego this year. If others in this discussion are going to be there, maybe we can do some of this in person. Might be a bit quicker. > The same question applies to the MIT > license and even the ASL 1.1. > > > If we aren't taking that approach and we are including non-ASL > > licensed code in the base distributions, at what point does the non- > > ASL code outweigh the ASL code and cause a problem for the community? > > If you see a problem with relicensing third-party BSD or ASL 1.1 > components under the Apache License, it's just not ever going to be > possible for us to limit our distributions to only those with an ALv2 > license, not even for just the core required stuff. > > 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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0515_01C5F435.D4A563E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see=20 how we're representing that.  Whoever contributed the code under = the=20 Apache license (if anyone) would be making a patent grant, but I don't = recall=20 Apache ever claiming that it had the ability to go find everyone who = has=20 contributed copyrightable code to old BSD projects and get patent = grants.=20  Frankly, I think that would be a waste of time.  And I = don't see=20 anything in the ASLv2 that requires it.
Asserting that=20 "this software is licensed under the ALv2" is a little misleading. We = must at=20 least make it clear that some of the components of that collective work = were=20 licensed to us under other licenses, including the BSD. That, I believe, = is all=20 that Cliff is suggesting.
 
But you're right=20 to point out that we don't need to look backwards to correct old=20 information. Let's just do it right going forward.
 
/Larry

From: Jeffrey Thompson=20 [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 = 3:34=20 PM
To: Cliff Schmidt
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Legal=20 Discuss
Subject: Re: Proposed header text at the top of each = LICENSE=20 file


Cliff Schmidt = <cliffs@apache.org> wrote=20 on 11/28/2005 05:40:17 PM:

> On Nov 24, 2005, at 4:32 PM, = Jeffrey=20 Thompson wrote:
>
> > I had thought that the approach = that we=20 were going to use was to  
> > have the base = distribution of any=20 Apache project licensed under the  
> > ASL, and that = there=20 would optionally be available for download add-
> > ons and = non-core=20 technology under other licenses (such as MPL, CPL,  
> > = etc.).
> >
> > If that's the case, then the license = file is=20 much easier.  Its  
> > ASL.  And for any = other=20 components, there would be a single LICENSE  
> > file=20 describing the license.  That would be easiest.
>
>=20 Unfortunately, I no longer think this is feasible.  There was a = time=20  
> when I thought that the ASF could limit its = distributions to=20 include  
> only software under the Apache License.  I = thought=20 that nearly all  
> third-party components that we = currently=20 distribute could be  
> sublicensed under the Apache = License.=20  Before even getting into the  
> question of how = critical CPL=20 and MPL-licensed binary components are  
> to today's ASF=20 distributions, let's take an extreme example: do you  
> = think it's=20 appropriate for the ASF to relicense a BSD-licensed  
> = component=20 under the Apache License?  Aren't we now representing that =  
>=20 the contributors of that code have offered an explicit patent grant=20  
> and revocation condition?

I don't see how we're representing that.  Whoever = contributed=20 the code under the Apache license (if anyone) would be making a patent = grant,=20 but I don't recall Apache ever claiming that it had the ability to go = find=20 everyone who has contributed copyrightable code to old BSD projects = and get=20 patent grants.  Frankly, I think that would be a waste of time. =  And=20 I don't see anything in the ASLv2 that requires it. =

BTW, I'm working on trying to get to San Diego this year. =  If=20 others in this discussion are going to be there, maybe we can do some = of this=20 in person.  Might be a bit quicker.

> The same question applies to the MIT  
> = license=20 and even the ASL 1.1.
>
> > If we aren't taking that = approach=20 and we are including non-ASL  
> > licensed code in the = base=20 distributions, at what point does the non-
> > ASL code = outweigh the=20 ASL code and cause a problem for the community?
>
> If = you see a=20 problem with relicensing third-party BSD or ASL 1.1  
> = components=20 under the Apache License, it's just not ever going to be =  
>=20 possible for us to limit our distributions to only those with an ALv2=20  
> license, not even for just the core required = stuff.
>=20
> Cliff


Staff = Counsel, IBM=20 Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) = -8160
(notes)=20 jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) = jeff@beff.net
(web)=20 http://www.beff.net/

------=_NextPart_000_0515_01C5F435.D4A563E0--