Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4677C6EC.3@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:07:08 -0400
From: Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
CC: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Are Gentleware community edition terms of usage acceptable ?
References: <d45b08f00706190444k1549ae7et34fe9c09e2d2b367@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d45b08f00706190444k1549ae7et34fe9c09e2d2b367@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using Poseidon UML to draw cool schemas. Now, I'm facing a
> difficult choice, as the free edition is quite limited :
> 1) I buy the standard edition (56$ a year, not very expensive, as I'm
> in europ, and as � is quite strong ;) _but_ it will be for my own
> usage
> 2) we ask for the community edition, available for the team, under the
> following terms :
> 
>    * The logo 'Sponsored by Apollo for Eclipse' or 'Sponsored by
> Poseidon for UML' must appear on the member project's website, no
> smaller than 135x55 pixels.
>    * The logo must function as a hyperlink to the Gentleware website:
> www.gentleware.com.
>    * Gentleware may refer to the member project as a Gentleware
> customer in marketing and sales materials, both online and in print.
>    * The license(s) remains the property of Gentleware AG. The
> license(s) is rented, not sold. Licensee may not sell, redistribute,
> encumber, give, lend, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer
> the license. The license(s) granted is only for the project specified
> and may not be transferred.
> 
> Are those four points acceptable? Point #4 seems ok to me, point #1
> and #2 are quite acceptable, as we already have logo of other products
> pointing to the company web-site (YourKit, JetBrains). But point #3
> seems quite embarrassing.
> 
> wdyt? What is the Apache position ?

Not speaking officially, only from experience.

#4 is fine, #1-#3 are not. The reasoning as I have had it explained to
me / seen it explained is that a software licence donation cost the
grantor nothing in real terms (whereas hard cash or a hardware
donation does).

It is worth comparing what they are asking for with
http://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html

What I don't now is how much of this is Apache policy and how much is
left up to the PMC. The PRC list might be a better place to ask this
question.

Mark

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