www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:41:39 GMT
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > > In this case, I don't think we should attempt to
>  > > abstract a use case.
>  > > Just record the specifics.
>  > >
>  >
>  > +1. Premature optimization^Wabstraction is the root
>  > of all evil.
>  > Specially in areas like legal, where we are not by
>  > any means experts. :)
>
>  I don't think being experts in law is required for
>  3rd party licensing.  Simply understanding the
>  positions of those 3rd parties should be sufficient,
>  in situations where the license is ambiguous.  The
>  (L)GPL licenses are ambiguous primarily in their
>  scope,
>  because different lawyers will say different things
>  about whether something is or isn't a derivative work,
>  or will argue about how broadly the courts will
>  interpret the "usage" rights of section 117 of the US
>  copyright law.  The ASF doesn't have to take a
>  position
>  on the scope of the (L)GPL, it is sufficient to
>  acknowledge the FSF's position as our default
>  interpretation unless the copyright holder offers us
>  a better one.  In the case of JBOSS and Hibernate,
>  we have exactly that- a better interpretation of
>  the LGPL.

It is slightly more than that.  I'm not going to say that what people
post on websites don't matter, but in cases where the actual license
that someone explicitly and intentionally picks says one thing, and
what people may post on a potentially volatile website contradicts
that license, which do you think a jury will pick as authoritative?
If you were a risk-adverse licensee, what would you do?

>  Instead of trying to make a use case for
>  LGPL out of it, I think the ASF would be better off
>  if it formed a position on projects developing Apache
>  licensed code which interfaces with those 2 projects.

The ASF has formed a position on specific projects which interface
with those two projects.

If you are looking for something more general, I plan to post
something later today, or perhaps tomorrow morning.  But be
forewarned, something more general will be something less specific.

If you look at the advice we have given Roller (namely that Roller and
Hibernate must be distributed as two separate pieces), and the advice
that some have suggested for ServiceMix (namely that the ServiceMix,
JBOSS, and the deployer must be distributed as three separate pieces),
our advice isn't 100% consistent.  But that's OK.

I'm finding that it is much easier to gain consensus on allowing
exactly what ServiceMix actually rested, and perhaps generalizing it a
tiny bit, than it is to gain consensus on what a given license coupled
with a few bits of conversation posted hither an yon might mean in the
abstract to the ASF in general.

If ServiceMix or any other projects finds they want more, we can
discuss it further then.

Fair enough?

- Sam Ruby

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