www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache License v2.0
Date Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:38:17 GMT
ok, I may be wildly off the mark here but as a !lawyer I wonder are we
missing the point?
Is the point not that the licensor can do what they choose, i.e. offer
any kind of licence, but the licensee has to comply with the licence
thats in effect? And in this case the licencee believes (rightly or
wrongly) that the licence is inappropriate for the agreement? Not a
licence problem at all, a people problem.

d.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Arthur Tam asked:
>
> However, back to my question
>
> is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
>
> the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
>
> not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
>
> new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
>
> release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
>
> base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
>
> somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
>
>
>
> Getting back to your question about the Apache License 2.0: As one of the
> attorneys for the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), I can vouch for all
> software it distributes under its license. All of ASF's open source software
> includes source code which is available for free download. [See
> www.apache.org]
>
>
>
> If some other company were to apply the Apache License 2.0 to their own
> software but then not actually provide you with source code to that
> software, that's not open source as I understand it. I've never known an
> open source company to charge an "unreasonable" fee for source code to their
> own open source software. Whether you have standing to sue in court to
> demand the source code "for free" is a separate question I would almost
> certainly not try to answer publicly here.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> bcc: Apache legal-discuss list
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
>
> Skype: LawrenceRosen
>
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
>
>                 Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Arthur Tam [mailto:arthur_tam2004@yahoo.com.hk]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:32 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
>
>
>
> Dear Lawrence Rosen,
>
>
>
> Totally agree with your message which is what I'm understand when I'm
>
> first reading the license GPLv3 and OSD. However, back to my question
>
> is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
>
> the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
>
> not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
>
> new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
>
> release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
>
> base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
>
> somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
>
>
>
> Rgds,
>
> Arthur
>
>
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>
>> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
>
>> send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
>
>> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
>
>>
>
>> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
>
>> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
>
>> you a binary version.
>
>
>
> Open source usually means what the OSI-approved license says it means.
>
>
>
> For OSL 3.0, "Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the
>
> Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work
>
> that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
>
> obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
>
> information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
>
> convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the
>
> Original Work." [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php, §4]
>
>
>
> So this license places an obligation on the *Licensor* to provide the source
>
> code to licensees regardless of whether any licensee asks for it. Source
>
> either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
>
> somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own license
>
> and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
>
> actually get the source code!]
>
>
>
> With OSL 3.0, any licensee who in turn distributes the Original Work or
>
> Derivative Works to third parties automatically and reciprocally becomes a
>
> *Licensor* and thereby accepts the obligation to provide source. [§1(c), §4]
>
>
>
> As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a licensee
>
> who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code. I leave that
>
> interpretation for the FSF to write.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
>
> Skype: LawrenceRosen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
>
>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:54 AM
>
>> To: Arthur Tam
>
>> Cc: John Cowan; license-discuss@opensource.org
>
>> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
>
>>
>
>> Arthur Tam scripsit:
>
>>
>
>> > Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
>
>> > imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
>
>> > a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
>
>> > why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?
>
>>
>
>> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
>
>> send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
>
>> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
>
>>
>
>> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
>
>> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
>
>> you a binary version.
>
>>
>
>> OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD.  #1 and #3-#10
>
>> are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not allow
>
>> <whatever>, it is not an Open Source license".  But #2 says that if the
>
>> *program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
>
>> source.  So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
>
>> the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
>
>> and #3-#10.  If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> A mosquito cried out in his pain,               John Cowan
>
>> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>
>>         The cause of his sorrow                 cowan@ccil.org
>
>>         Was para-dichloro-
>
>> Diphenyltrichloroethane.                                (aka DDT)
Mime
View raw message