www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: apache license 2.0: having trouble getting our university licensing office to like it, your thoughts?
Date Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:40 GMT
2009/6/30 John Owens <john_owens@yahoo.com>:
>
> Howdy, I'm a professor at an unnamed campus of the University of
> California and lead an open-source project. The project is currently
> licensed under a modified BSD license (that has a couple of extra
> clauses from plain BSD). We would like to move the project to Google
> Code and use Apache 2.0 to license it there (our industrial
> collaborator prefers Apache 2.0). Our licensing office at my campus
> does not like Apache (but would allow us to use BSD or another license
> that does not have the patent clause) and I was hoping to get your
> guidance / advice / thoughts on the difficulty I'm having.


This is a known problem with US institutions.

I'm in a little bit of a hurry right now so can't lookup links but to
help someone (Larry?) dig into the specifics of this problem I thought
a quick mail would help:

A bunch of US institutions in major projects funded by the Mellon
Foundation created the Educational Community Licence because of this
problem.

In (approx.) 2004 my predecessor in my current job, Cliff Schmidt and
a bunch of academic lawyer types met to discuss the problem. The
sector wants to use the Apache licence but often cannot because of the
patent issues.

According to a report of that meeting which I found in March 2007 it
says that this meeting agreed that there would be an Apache Licence
2.1 with an appropriate change that would allow the ECL code to be
migrated to this new Apache Licence.

As you can imagine, I was a little concerned when I read this so I
called my predecessor who told me he did not recall Cliff
(representing the ASF) to have made such a promise. I also asked on
this list (with a link to the report), Cliff replied that yes, he was
going to give a 2.1 text the next day (don't worry though, his reply
came on April 1st). On April 2nd he denied any knowledge of the
agreement, but confirmed he was at the meeting.

The document I linked to provides full details of the problem the
academic institutions have and the changes they would like to see. But
this was never followed up here in legal-discuss.

Perhaps someone can find my mail and hence a link to the report in the
archives (reply from Ciff was on April 1st so should be easy to find)

This is not a problem for us here in the UK, but there is significant
work in the US affected by this.

Ross

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


Mime
View raw message