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 12:19:38 GMT
Rory,

I trust we can resolve this with a little co-operation as stated in my
earlier mail we do not propose to introduce restrictions not appearing
in the version 2.0 license. It may be that stating a few thins in
writing for comfort may do the trick as Apache appear to be saying many
of things are addressed any way because it is charitable foundation and
its constitutional documents address some of the issues.

Regards
Anwar

Anwar Mahmood

Legal Director 

Telecoms

_________________________________________

LogicaCMG - Releasing your potential



 

2 Trinity Park
Birmingham
B37 7ES
United Kingdom

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

E-mail:anwar.mahmood@logicacmg.com 




www.logicacmg.com/telecoms 

 




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
opening.



  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rory Winston [mailto:rwinston@eircom.net] 
Sent: 22 December 2006 22:40
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Mahmood, Anwar; akarasulu@apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org;
Kunchur, Nitin
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: License]

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
>
>
>
>




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


Mime
View raw message