www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache license 2.1 and 2.2?
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:34:15 GMT
On 4/1/07, Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > I'd be fascinated to know exactly which agent appeared in the capacity
> > > of the ASF at the summit.  I know of no plans nor progress on AL 2.1
> > > or 2.2. That said, any member could propose a new license to members@,
> > > it's reception if Academics believe they deserve some 'special exemption'
> > > from the thermonuclear litigation clause could be very cold.
> >
> > My bad - following the link answers the question quite clearly.
> >
> > Cliff, if you made some announcements at the forum w.r.t. the ASL, would
> > you mind sharing these publicly?  (Particularly before we read them on
> > another forum ;-)
>
> Sure  -- I was going to wait until the universities signed off on my
> latest draft of v2.2 (we actually had a v2.1 earlier but scrapped it
> when it went off too far in the wrong direction).  I can't talk about
> the details just yet, but I'm basically just making some changes to
> the patent grant to address university patent-scope concerns while
> also fixing the problem with how the patent CLA issue was being
> interpreted.
>
> I'll explain more tomorrow (April 2nd) when I have more time.

Well...now that it is no longer April Fool's Day for any time
zone....I'll give you the real story.

I'm sorry to have stressed a few people out over the last 18 hours,
but I just thought it was such a crazy idea that I would actually
"make announcements" about the Apache License without discussing it
here, that I figured most folks would realize I was joking...or should
know me well enough to realize that.

So, here's the real story:

I attended a meeting last October mentioned in board minutes in my
Legal report here:
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt.

It does sound like someone has (probably unintentionally)
misrepresented some of my statements at that meeting.  The academic
representatives explained to me how they wanted to use the Apache CLA,
 but that the patent language wasn't ideal for them (which I can
explain if anyone is interested).  I said that I didn't think the
patent language was ideal either (due to the ambiguity that was
discussed on this list a few months before), and that one day we might
want to revise it.  However, I made it clear that if Apache was to
ever do such a thing, it definitely wouldn't be within the several
months that they needed to have a license to use.  I also pointed out
that Apache might not be willing to adopt the language they were
looking for, which addressed a very academic-specific issue.  At that
point, they sounded as if they would be interested to be kept in the
loop with any plans we would have in the future, but that they were
going to move forward on their own.

That is the extent of the statements I made about our CLA.  In short:
 - we would likely revise it one day;
 - I personally believe some aspects could be improved upon;
 - not sure when this would actually happen; and
 - the process would take a long while

Cliff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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