www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory Winston <rwins...@eircom.net>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: License]
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:40:21 GMT
It does seem to me that some of the conditions that Anwar is specifying 
could be feasibly met, for instance, as Roy has stated, a NOTICE file 
could contain attribution to LogicaCMG for original development of the 
work? However, the one worrying point and an absolute dead end is the 
placement of commercial restrictions. Most businesses that I have worked 
with have chosen the Apache license for its lack of commercial 
restrictions, making it, in my opinion, the most pragmatic licensing 
model, in which case releasing this component under the (L)GPL seems the 
more appropriate choice...perhaps Anwar has some unfounded reservations 
about the terms of the Apache license, or there is some other 
fundamental misunderstanding here regarding the Apache model?

Rory

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Dear Mr. Mahmood,
>
> Just to be clear, the purpose of the Apache Software Foundation is
> to support the collaborative development of open source software
> for distribution to the public at no charge under the terms of
> the Apache License.  Collaboration may be for many reasons, and
> include both individuals and companies.  Everyone who contributes
> to the ASF is doing so under this license in one of three forms:
> this software grant, the contributors license agreement, or under
> the terms of the Apache License.  Everyone who receives software
> from the ASF does so at no charge to them under the open source
> Apache License.  All of the redistribution rights under both
> copyright and patent law must be licensed to the ASF because that
> is what we sublicense to the public.
>
> On Dec 22, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Mahmood, Anwar wrote:
>
>> 1) Yes we are looking to grant Apache a license to use the Software. We
>> acknowledge we do not need a license back of the Software itself however
>> we do seek a license of any changes Apache makes or open source
>> contributors make, I have amended the draft accordingly. I see no
>> inconsistency with copyright law which grants rights of copyright
>> ownership to the creator of a work. Development is creation if you want
>> to say creator we can do so.
>
> The *only* way that we can redistribute software under our license
> is if we have the legal right to do so by virtue of a license from
> the copyright owners.  Note that the "developer" or "creator" of a
> given piece of software may or may not be the copyright owner,
> depending on the jurisdiction and whether or not it was a work
> for hire.  That is why we use the term as we do, and why we need
> a license from the copyright owner and not just the developer.
>
>> 2) On this issue we disagree with you. Let us be clear we are only
>> making the software available with the express condition it is kept open
>> source there is no negotiation on this. You will have no commercial
>> exploitation rights so your requirement is a non starter.
>
> Then we have no interest in your software.  Thank you for being clear.
>
>> 3) There will be limitations I don't agree with your view at all.
>>
>> You seem to have overlooked that we are offering this Software without
>> charge for the benefit of the whole open source community the license
>> must and will be compatible with these objectives. It is suggested that
>> you rethink your non conciliatory stance on this as the proposal as it
>> is for mutual and charitable benefit.
>
> If you would like to place commercial limitations on your software,
> you can do so by distributing under a license with terms that you wish.
> There are a number of non-open source licenses that will accomplish
> what you seek (not allow commercial exploitation).  There are also
> a number of open source licenses (such as the CDDL and GPL) that do not
> restrict commercial use but do require that all modifications to be
> distributed under the same license.
>
> The Apache Software Foundation only distributes software under terms
> that are compatible with the Apache License.  Your terms are not
> even compatible with open source, so there is nothing further to
> discuss.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message