Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates
 209.85.146.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=LbekdvHIV7ySYiMnnfxLCujwXNvYm5P0lI6pCkUirpMj3u9p0ELgPzKC5TbXlJAKUm
         JB7eAEv0ltDALMaOuNu0JZUcOUjMAI3LAcL6YTOYLsGi/m5WvCPYqvKj3PfXVNM2LpzO
         5ROWhtJ6aWrmrPH48OLxrUi6n9Vm1pXpT+/ms=
Message-ID: <3d4032300806180641p53a1b7c5r9da56141a26711a5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:41:13 -0400
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com
To: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Google Services License
Cc: "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum@gmail.com>,
	"Craig L Russell" <Craig.Russell@sun.com>,
	"legal discuss" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <2d12b2f00806041258u66554dd1xd395f513fc3d2ff5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5a75db780806040006p207de31fi42b971aea67431f3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <400C07EC-4EA8-47B1-8C60-4E8F2E53F6B9@SUN.com>
	 <4846CD75.2000906@gmail.com>
	 <2d12b2f00806041258u66554dd1xd395f513fc3d2ff5@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> It starts with:
>
> "By using Google's products, software, services or web sites ("Google
> services"), you agree to the following terms and conditions"
>
> At quick inspection, there is nothing in the GData API project to
> point you to these TOS, so the only concern I would have is if the TOS
> impose conditions on users that mean they're not as free to use the AL
> 2.0 code as they might be. I'm assuming that our developers would be
> (and probably already are for outside ASF reasons) signed up to use
> the services.
>
> Looking at that - the interesting text imo is in section 4.
>
> "You acknowledge and agree that Google services and any necessary
> software used in connection with Google services ("Software") contain
> proprietary and confidential information that is protected by
> applicable intellectual property and other laws and treaties. You
> further acknowledge and agree that Content contained in sponsor
> advertisements or presented to you through Google services is
> protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents or other
> proprietary rights and laws. Except as expressly authorized by Google
> or other proper third party rights holders, you agree not to modify,
> rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based
> on Content, Google services or Software, in whole or in part except as
> specifically authorized in a separate written agreement."
>
> So the user agreement gives them none of the usual copyright rights to
> the software used, unless expressly authorized. So the big question
> there is: "Is AL 2.0 on a codebase in code.google.com expressly
> authorizing?".
>
> They also say:
>
> "You agree not to access Google services by any means other than
> through the interface that is provided by Google for use in accessing
> Google services except as specifically authorized in a separate
> written agreement. "
>
> If we have person P, service S, google-api G and apache-product A,
> it's obviously fine for:  P->G->S. Are users allowed to do P->A->G->S?
> While it doesn't stop us adding the dependency, it would be lame if
> the users wouldn't be able to use the feature in Tuscany. I imagine
> that's okay, that the important part is G->S and not P->G.
>
> So I'd want to get confirmation from Google on both of those topics.
> Any thoughts?

I am entirely unconcerned.  The code itself is not in question.

Tuscany can be substantially used without this feature.  Those that
want to use this feature need a google account, or to find another
service and modify the code appropriately to access that service.  If
there were another analogous service available, I don't doubt that
Tuscany wouldn't hesitate for a moment to support it equally.

As such, I see no need to get a confirmation from Google.

A mention in a README in terms of the impact and implications to the
user (it can be as simple as "usage of X requires Y") would be
appropriate.

- 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