www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mahmood, Anwar" <anwar.mahm...@logicacmg.com>
Subject RE: [Fwd: Re: License]
Date Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:10:51 GMT
Dear Mr Fielding,

Thank you for your mail the contents of which I will take further
instructions from our commercial management.

Our original proposal was that we license to the foundation on the
Apache version 2.0 license terms. The issues that have arisen are a
result of the Foundations license grant document which included terms
which were in our view in divergence to releasing the software as open
source. We do not propose to introduce restrictions that are not in your
version 2.0 license and will compare the terms to ensure they are

I will let you have revised grant shortly. However, pending our
managements, instructions I trust we can resolve any misunderstandings
and conflicts in an amicable manner.


Anwar Mahmood

Legal Director 



LogicaCMG - Releasing your potential


2 Trinity Park
B37 7ES
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)121 787 0000
Direct Dial: +44 (0) 121 787 0359
Mobile: +44 (0) 7779 326286




Confidentiality: This e-mail including any attachments is intended for
the above named adressee(s)only and contains confidential information.
If you have received this e-mail in error you must take no action based
on its contents , nor must you copy or show the e-mail or any
attachments to anyone; please reply to the sender of this e-mail
informing them of the error.

Viruses: We recommend that in keeping with good computing practice the
recipient should ensure that e-mails received are virus free before


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: 22 December 2006 22:15
To: Mahmood, Anwar
Cc: akarasulu@apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org; Kunchur, Nitin
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: License]

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

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.


Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It
may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.
It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not
an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies
and inform the sender. Thank you.

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

View raw message