www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:49:29 GMT
El lun, 20-04-2009 a las 13:11 +1000, Aristedes Maniatis escribió:
> On 19/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:
> > My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the  
> > legal
> > concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making  
> > documents
> > available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish
> Legally, intent is not important. Just ask the defendants/victims of  
> the RIAA's lawsuits in the USA. Their state of mind is not relevant.  
> I'm guessing a large number of people using bitTorrent aren't aware  
> that they are publishing anything.
> But it is important to recognise that this conversation doesn't appear  
> to be about legal issues. Rather it is about something else: how  
> Apache wishes to be perceived by the general public. We have seen one  
> project pull demos out of trunk of their repository, so their  
> interpretation seems to be:
> 1. non-Apache licensed things in official distributions: BAD.
> 2. non-Apache licensed things in trunk of svn: BAD
> 3. non-Apache licensed things in branches of svn: OK
> 4. non-Apache licensed things in history of svn: OK

Agreed for 1. and 2. if you change "non-Apache licensed" with the
compatibility categories. 

for 3. and 4., and after reading other answers, I guess the trigger is
being able to do lawful distribution, even if our policies don't allow
bundling. So, having a GPL or LGPL in places where there is no confusion
with them being part of the release is probably kosher.

2. is a bit more fuzzy, as a full checkout would make "maybe
unsuspecting" users incur some risks of mixing licenses.

> Everyone agrees about (1): the others need clear guidance so that PMCs  
> can behave consistently.
> The second issue is what constitutes a 'non-Apache licensed thing'. Is  
> it:
> a. The legal definition (that is, something which isn't wholly Apache  
> licensed)
> b. Some fuzzy definition which means that (for example) Photoshop  
> files are OK if the content they represent is appropriately licensed,  
> even if the actual file checked into svn is not legally compatible  
> with the Apache license.
> c. Some more relaxed definition which allows for Apache incompatible  
> dependencies when they are in non-core elements such as demos, source  
> materials or examples. A video presentation demo could be created in  
> Flash and therefore 'closed source'. A demo could be useful even if it  
> GPL or for that matter completely closed source. The test here is  
> whether the 'thing' is part of the 'distribution' which people  
> recognise as the httpd web server, or Cayenne ORM library, etc.
> I'm not an Apache member and don't get a vote, but I think the above  
> points should be officially clarified. If I were to give my opinion it  
> would be that everything in svn is merely 'working materials' designed  
> to be as useful as possible to produce the real products of Apache.  
> That means it should not matter whether Apache licensed material is  
> produced on computers running Windows, and demoed with a video  
> presentation created with Flash and checked into svn, or web site  
> content muddied with proprietary Atlassian Confluence markup tags. I  
> don't think every tool and demo needs to be Apache licensed for the  
> 'real' output to reflect the values of this community.
> Ari Maniatis
> -------------------------->
> ish
> http://www.ish.com.au
> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
> phone +61 2 9550 5001   fax +61 2 9550 4001
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message