www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bay...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r802475 [2/3] - in /infrastructure/site/trunk: docs/legal/reports.html xdocs/legal/reports.xml
Date Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:09:39 GMT

Modified: infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html?rev=802475&r1=802474&r2=802475&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html [utf-8] (original)
+++ infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html [utf-8] Sun Aug  9 02:09:38 2009
@@ -75,28 +75,1726 @@
    Purpose and Intended Audience
 </h4>
 <div class="section-content">
-<p>This page includes a concatenation of the reports made by the VP of Legal Affairs to the ASF Board of Directors, and
-may be of interest to committers wishing to follow the progress and history of legal policy issues. 
-</p>
+<p>
+          This page includes a concatenation of the reports and resolution
+          proposals made by the VP of Legal Affairs to the ASF Board of
+          Directors, and may be of interest to committers wishing to follow
+          the progress and history of legal policy issues.
+        </p>
 </div>
 
 <h4 id="overview">
    Overview
 </h4>
 <div class="section-content">
-<p>The following reports are included in this page:
+<p>
+          The following reports are included in this page. The complete
+          <a href="http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html">board meeting minutes</a> are also available.
+        </p>
 <ul>
-<li><a href="#2006-06-27">June 27, 2006</a></li>
-</ul>
-</p>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2009-03-18">March 18, 2009</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2009-02-18">February 18, 2009</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2009-01-21">January 21, 2009</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-12-17">December 17, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-11-19">November 19, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-10-15">October 15, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-09-17">September 17, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-08-20">August 20, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-07-16">July 16, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-06-25">June 25, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-05-21">May 21, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-04-16">April 16, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership (approved)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-03-19">March 19, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-02-20">February 20, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership (approved)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2008-01-16">January 16, 2008</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-11-14">November 14, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-10-17">October 17, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-09-19">September 19, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-08-29">August 29, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-07-09">July 09, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership (approved)
+              </li>
+              <li>
+                Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs (approved)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-07-20">June 20, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-04-25">April 25, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-03-28">March 28, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Establish the Legal Affairs Committee (approved)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-02-21">February 21, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2007-01-17">January 17, 2007</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-12-20">December 20, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-11-15">November 15, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-10-25">October 25, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-09-20">September 20, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-08-16">August 16, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-07-19">July 19, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-06-27">June 27, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-05-24">May 24, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Establish guidelines for handling copyright notices and
+                license headers (approved)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-04-26">April 26, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-03-15">March 15, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2006-01-18">January 18, 2006</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-12-21">December 21, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-11-16">November 11, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-10-26">October 26, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-09-21">September 21, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-08-17">August 17, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables
+                (approved)
+              </li>
+              <li>
+                Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries (tabled)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-07-28">July 28, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries (tabled)
+              </li>
+              <li>
+                Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables
+                (tabled)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+          <li>
+            <a href="#2005-06-22">June 22, 2005</a>
+            <ul>
+              <li>
+                Appoint a Vice President of Legal Affairs (appointed)
+              </li>
+            </ul>
+          </li>
+        </ul>
 </div>
+
+<h4 id="2009-03-18">
+   March 18, 2009
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Active month, nothing requiring board attention beyond a passing mention of
+staffing.  Summary:
+
+internal:
+  LGPL optional library for testing CouchDB (OK)
+  DOM4J (BSD style license, accepted)
+  JSR 173 license (replaced with an ALv2 equiv)
+  Protocol Buffer License (verified as BSD) 
+  Unicode data license (ICU: OK)
+  MSV license (category X: due to FOU)
+  License Headers question (dealing with BSD)
+  Question as to when CCLAs are required (QPid)
+  OASIS license of XSDs (not separately licensed?)
+  OLIO fragment cache license (MIT)
+  ICLA required for student under contract? (wouldn't hurt)
+  Use of Prolog (the language) (OK)
+  Abstract question on documentation (need specifics)
+
+outside:
+  Permission to reuse our CLA form itself (granted!)
+  Question as to whether the ECCN "conveys" to commercial users (answer:
+    exemption may not apply - consult a lawyer)
+  General question as to whether ASF code can be sublicensed commercially
+    (can and does)
+  Hypothetical Discussion between Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen (over my head)
+
+Referred elsewhere:
+  Two separate potential violation of an ASF Trademark (to PRC)
+  Advice for book authors (to PRC)
+  IP-clearance question (to incubator)
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2009-02-18">
+   February 18, 2009
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    B. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+       Sam confirmed that an open list was not a problem at this time,
+       and noted that he is pleased with the sharing of the load; while
+       Henri and Larry take on bigger shares than most (thanks!), nobody
+       dominates and plenty of people contribute..
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+While traffic has picked up from last month, absolutely none of it should be
+of any concern to the board.  Brief summary:
+
+ * General questions on public domain and fair use
+ * A question about a previously approved license (zlib/libpng)
+ * Two questions on IP clearance, one quick and one more involved, both
+   forwarded to the incubator
+ * A JSR spec contained obsolete licensing terms (Geir quickly dove in)
+ * An inquiry on trademark considerations, including the project logo and the
+   ASF feather from committers on an ASF project working on a book.
+ * An internal discussion on open letters.
+
+The list also attracts questions from users.  While it is not something that
+we are set up to do (or, in fact, a service we intend to provide), it has not
+proven to be a problem in practice.  Discussions of this nature from the past
+month:
+
+ * Request for advice on a project desiring to use the Apache License and
+   depend on code licensed under the GPL.
+ * A webapp developer asked a question about the MySQL license
+ * A developer of an application on sourceforge asked about how to structure
+   his LICENSE file given that his project is based on an ASF project
+ * A general question about defensive publication as a way to protect against
+   patent trolls.
+ * A general question on internal use of Apache projects
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2009-01-21">
+   January 21, 2009
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Very quiet month, nothing requiring board attention.  Highlights:
+
+Naming discussion on JSecurity.  Probably would not have given approval to
+that name in the first place, but given that the name has been in use for
+four years without an issue being raised, there isn't consensus on requiring
+a change.  That being said the naming discussion was an inevitable bikeshed.
+
+Discussion of whether a given W3C license was category 'B' or 'X'.  Given that
+the code in question was dual licensed with BSD, the question was moot.
+
+A discussion about a different W3C license and the policy of not allowing 
+non-OSS code in SVN wandered off into nowhere as hypothetical discussions are
+want to do.  There was a similar discussion about PDF CJK fonts, and it
+appears that the direction there will be to dynamically download the data vs
+polluting SVN.
+
+A question about dealing with the US Government was handled by Larry off-list.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-12-17">
+   December 17, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+       People are encouraged to follow up on the first issue on
+       legal-discuss.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Most significant thread has the unfortunate subject line of 
+"use of proprietary binaries".  I say unfortunate, as it is unduly
+prejudicial.  The essence of the pragmatism behind "category B" is to
+identify artifacts whose licenses, while different than our own, don't
+affect the ability of us developing our code under our license.  As long
+as the dependency is clearly marked and we are not distributing these
+artifacts, we should be good.  Related questions such as whether such
+artifacts can be checked into SVN, etc. should be examined in terms of
+infrastructure burden and potential to increase confusion, and not excluded
+as a blanket matter of policy.
+
+The context for the above is optional external APIs and compliance test
+suites.  While we would all love for these to be open, that's not a
+requirement.  The line in the sand is whether or not usage of such affects
+our ability to develop our code under our license.
+
+By contrast, redistribution of PDF CJK fonts, for which the license clearly
+states that the "contents of this file are not altered" was greeted warmly,
+albeit with a separate discussion about patents.
+
+Other threads:
+
+Does working on Sun RI automatically "contaminate" developer, and preclude
+them from working on ASF project?  Answer: not in general, though specific
+PMCs may have specific rules in place depending on the nature of the project.
+
+Lenya website redesign - ensuring that the contributions are under the
+appropriate license.
+
+Obtaining licenses for testing purposes - original question dealt with
+WebSphere, but wondered off to TCKs.
+
+Branding question ("AskApache") referred to PRC.
+
+Continued discussion about Google Analytics.  No consensus that there is
+a clear issue yet.
+
+A naming question for JSecurity lead to the inevitable bikeshedding...
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-11-19">
+   November 19, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+It would be helpful to obtain a Notice of Allowance from Robyn in order to
+pursue registering the SpamAssassin Trademark.
+
+Sebastian Bazley updated the mailbox drop information on CCLAs to reflect our
+Wells Fargo lockbox.
+
+Discussed documenting privacy policies w.r.t. Google analytics and
+interpreting "internal use" as our project mailing lists.  Parallel discussion
+occurred on site-dev.
+
+Advised Facelets to preserve NOTICEs and not to modify copyright claims
+in files that they copy.
+
+Jira item created for documenting the process for choosing names for ASF
+projects.  Looks promising.
+
+Once again, a discussion of making section 5 of the Apache License, Version
+2.0 more explicit via mailing list messages surfaced.  Thankfully, it died
+quickly.  My feeling is that what we have works for us for now, and shouldn't
+be changed unless there is a specific issue.
+
+A company offered Lucene access to archived blog data.  There was a discussion
+concerning us hosting a copy of this, but this made some people uncomfortable
+w.r.t. potential copyright violations.
+
+Discussed w3c's copyright-documents-19990405.html.  Overall doesn't look
+open source friendly, but we may be open to further discussion of checkin
+of unmodified sources with appropriate documentation.
+
+Reviewed Oracle's proposed revised JSR301 draft license
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-10-15">
+   October 15, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+4 JIRA requests opened, 3 closed; all related to how to deal with "one off"
+licenses.
+
+Continuing discussions on Google Analytics and legal options related to the
+JCK impasse.
+
+Otherwise, a pretty quiet month.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-09-17">
+   September 17, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Things continue to run smoothly.  I'm pleased with the number of active
+participants.
+
+An abstract question was asked about an ability to commit to a project given
+exposure to prior ideas from a previous employer.  In general, such a
+situation causes us no major concerns, though the situation may vary based on
+the specific projects and specific employers in question.
+
+PDFBox was originally BSD licensed and obtained software grants from all of
+the primary authors.  A question was asked regarding small contributions from
+people who they are no longer able contact.  Given the size of the
+contributions in question, the original license, and the fact that reasonable
+efforts were made to locate such people, it was determined that this was not a
+concern.
+
+A FAQ was added that older versions of Apache software licensed under Apache
+Software License 1.0 are still licensed as such.
+
+Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution version 3.0 license has been
+approved, provided the materials in question are unmodified.  Previously, only
+the 2.5 version had been approved.
+
+A JIRA was opened on documenting release voting procedures.  No owner.
+
+Larry helped resolve an issue where a company wished to rewrite our CCLA.
+Our policy is that we don't accept modified ICLAs or CCLAs.
+
+SyntaxHighlighter (LGPL) was approved for use on people.apache.org pages.
+
+Nobody seems to know the licensing status of BEA's StAX implementation, so
+most projects are simply routing around it.
+
+Larry has volunteered to register SpamAssassin trademarks.  Given that the PRC
+and the SA PMCs are OK with this, if the board approves the expenditure, I'll
+tell him to proceed.
+
+David Crossley has produced a first draft of a project naming document.  He's
+been on the list for over a year, and starting in July of this year has picked
+up his participation.
+
+Routine copyright/notice questions from Felix, CouchDB, JAMES and the Incubator.
+
+RSA's implementation of MD4/MD5 says one thing in their licensing headers and
+a quite different thing on their IETF IPR statement.  I think we are covered,
+but we still need to settle how to document this properly.
+
+Bluesky inquired about moving away from some (unspecified) C++ Standard
+library implementation to STLPORT, presumably for licensing reasons.
+Everything I have heard to date indicates that we would be comfortable with
+either implementation.
+
+Google Analytics continues to be explored.  Justin expressed an opinion that,
+while a bit stronger than I recall the board expressing, is one that I'm quite
+pleased and comfortable with: namely that we start from a presumption of data
+of this type being open to all, and work backwards from there -- making closed
+only what we must.
+
+A discussion has just started on the legal implications of contests involving
+prizes.  If the prizes themselves are donated, and are substantial, we may
+have to consider such as targeted donations.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-08-20">
+   August 20, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    3. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 3
+
+       Jim asked if the board should request a status update
+       regarding the 3rd party license policy. Sam indicated that
+       this was not necessary based on the areas of consensus already
+       are published on the web site, and the items being worked
+       appear in JIRA. No action was taken.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 3: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+While comments were made on a half-dozen or so JIRA issues, none were either
+created or closed this month.  I believe that this process is working
+smoothly, and does not warrant board attention.
+
+Notable discussions that occurred during this month:
+
+As reported elsewhere, Microsoft clarified their position on their Open
+Specification Promise.  As near as I can tell, everybody feels that this
+completely resolves the issues surrounding the upcoming OOXML support by POI.
+
+The division of labor between the PRC, the incubator, and the Legal Affairs
+Committee continues to confuse people.  My understanding is that the PRC is
+responsible for enforcing our claim to names, the incubator is responsible for
+IP clearance (including names), and the Legal Affairs Committee helps respond
+to claims made against the ASF.
+
+A GPL license question surfaced -- this started out with Xapian which is
+licensed under GPL v2 and confusion over what the FSF claims of
+"compatibility" with the Apache License means. Eventually this discussion
+wandered off into the territory of hypotheticals.  GPL v2 remains on the ASF's
+restricted list (a.k.a. Category "X").
+
+By contrast, syntax highlighter (licensed under the LGPL) was approved for the
+limited purposes of non-essential enhancement of online documentation.
+
+There was a brief discussion on "blanket" grants and "commit by proxy".  This
+was resolved by citing the relevant sections of the ICLA which has explicit
+provisions for the enablement of submitting code on behalf of a third party.
+
+There was a brief discussion as to whether an ICLA sufficient when a person
+may have been exposed to ideas and alternate implementations from a previous
+employer.  Our position is yes.  Individual PMCs are welcome to set a higher
+bar for themselves.
+
+A permathread re-erupted: when are Apache License Headers needed?  The general
+guidance is that they should be added whenever practical, but only where
+practical.
+
+There is an ongoing discussion about notice requirements when code is reused
+from other projects.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-07-16">
+   July 16, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+       A brief discussion was had concerning ASF committers and members
+       participating as Expert Witnesses.  This is a decision that only
+       the individual in question can make for themselves, but if there
+       is any concern that there might involve an ASF vulnerability,
+       then the individual is requested to include the ASF's legal VP
+       and counsel in the discussion.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Resolved issues:
+
+* Documentation about the Legal Affairs Committee has been added to
+  the web site (primary source: board resolutions)
+
+* Cobertura reports can be included in Apache distributions
+
+* Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License Agreement v1.2 does not
+  raise any concerns.
+
+Significant Discussions:
+
+* Permathread about policy issue about shipping LGPL jars reoccurred.
+  again this month.
+
+* We are Revisiting whether or not there should be a JIRA checkbox concerning
+  whether or not there should be a "Grant license to the ASF" checkbox
+  and what the default should be.
+
+Other:
+
+* Received another inquiry from the owners of the Abator trademark.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-06-25">
+   June 25, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Another month with little controversy.
+
+At this point /legal/resolved.html contains the bulk of the content
+from the draft 3party text upon which there is wide consensus.  This includes
+the discussion of category 'A', 'B', and 'X' licenses.  Henri has a real
+talent for proposing text upon which people can find common ground.
+
+The wiki that was previously set up at my request is not seeing much use.
+Relevant documents that were previously there (as well as on
+people.apache.org home directories) have been migrated to the website
+proper.
+
+A JIRA area has been established for tracking legal issues, and this has
+resulted in a lot of activity and issues moving to closure.
+
+Two major areas of future focus:
+
+Nearer term is a sincere desire in a number of areas to be more proactive
+about obtaining suitable licenses for potential patents.  This has caused
+problems as patent licensing issues are not as clear cut as copyright or
+trademark issues.  I'm comfortable having the Legal Affairs Committee making
+the call that, for example, WSRP4J and POI pose acceptable risks for the
+foundation, and downstream help PMCs mitigate those risks should these
+assessments prove to be unfounded.
+
+Longer term, clarifying and documenting the various notice requirements
+(NOTICE, LICENSE, README) needs attention.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-05-21">
+   May 21, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    B. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+A fairly quiet month.
+
+The iBATOR trademark infringement issue seems to have been resolved
+satisfactorily.
+
+Glassfish has now corrected the license issue with prior versions of
+their product (as of the last board report, they had only addressed
+the latest version).
+
+Andy Oliver is continuing to work quietly with myself and ASF council
+to see if we can identify and resolve his concerns with the Microsoft
+funding of Sourcesense to implement OOXML.
+
+WSRP4J appears to be in a roughly analogous place.  There are no known
+actively enforced patents by either IBM or WebCollege that apply to
+this code, but a desire to preemptively and proactively get a
+license agreement.
+
+As indicated in the incubator report, nobody on the Legal Affairs
+Committee has expressed any concern with the changes proposed by Roy
+for the procedures for IP Clearance.
+
+Questions on compatibility with various licenses continue to pop up
+from time to time.
+
+No questions on third party licensing issues arose during the past
+month.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-04-16">
+   April 16, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    B. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 2
+
+ 7. Special Orders
+
+    A. Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software
+       Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the
+       periodic update of its membership; and
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee
+       whose membership must be approved by Board resolution.
+
+       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
+       added as a Legal Affairs Committee member:
+
+          Craig Russell &lt;craig.russell@sun.com&gt;
+
+       Special order 7A, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership,
+       was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Sun has restored Apache License headers to the Jasper code with
+Glassfish V3.  Craig Russell was instrumental in making this happen.
+I feel this issue is now closed.
+
+In related news, the Legal Affairs Commitee voted to add Craig to the
+committee, and it appears as resolution 7A on today's agenda.  From time
+to time, I see a number of smaller items that come up on the legal
+mailing lists go unaddressed.  I intend to continue to pursue expanding
+the Legal Affairs Committee membership.
+
+We received more information on the trademark concern, and this has
+resulted in Apache iBATIS beginning the process of renaming Apache
+iBATIS Abator to Apache iBATIS iBATOR.
+
+The Legal Affairs committee participated in a number of JCP and Harmony
+related discussions.  This is already adequately covered by the report
+from the VP of JCP.
+
+The third party licensing policy continues to remain a draft and despite
+not being made into a policy, is still useful as a set of guidelines and
+hasn't prevented us from making meaningful progress on actual requests
+from podlings and PMCs, such as the request as to how Buildr is to treat
+dependencies covered under the Ruby license.
+
+There has been discussion regarding WSRP with respect to patents.
+While it isn't clear that there is a patent that reads on WSRP, but a
+member of the portals PMC sent a request inquiring as to how certain
+patents would be licensed by IBM and Web Collage.  Upon review, the
+consensus seems to be that the agreement presented to us by Web Collage
+is not sufficient for our needs.
+
+POI has a situation where a committer has stated his intent to
+revert commits which were made several months ago based on a feeling
+that there may be patents which read on the code in question.
+
+Portions of the legal site are in flux, and meta discussion as to when
+and who can update the site occur from time to time.  This is normal
+and healthy.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-03-19">
+   March 19, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+The third party draft has been a significant distraction.  This document
+serves a quite useful purpose -- as a guide.  Shortly after this month's
+board meeting, I plan to publish a short document describing how it
+is useful as a guide and identifying a few places where hard distinctions
+it attempts to make are overreaching and will not (yet) be enforced.
+
+Meanwhile, focus will return to concrete, tangible, and near-term
+decisions.  The first two of which which will be resolved this week
+deal with code licensed for use "in the creation of products supporting
+the Unicode Standard" and an optional LGPL "deployer" distributed in
+source form.
+
+Other activities:
+ * WSRP4J is looking into potential patent claims
+ * Ongoing crypto notice work
+ * Discussion on maintenance of the year on copyright notices
+ * Question as to whether we would allow projects to dual license (answer: no)
+ * Discussion of various open specification pledges, particularly Microsoft's
+ * OSGI bundle requirements will require ServiceMix to create, maintain, and
+   distribute a small amount of CDDL licensed descriptions.
+ * Continuing confusion over the split between the NOTICE and LICENSE files,
+   this needs to be dealt with by the Legal Affairs Committee
+ * Fielded a question from a non-profit that wanted to base their license
+   off of ours.
+ * A growing list of open legal questions, mostly related to third party
+   licensing.
+ * Glassfish still hasn't restored the Apache License headers to Jasper
+   files, despite some encouraging words that they were going to.  Yet
+   another letter was sent to Simon Phipps and the legal contact at Sun
+   he provided me with.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-02-20">
+   February 20, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+ 
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+7. Special Orders
+
+    E. Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software
+       Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the
+       periodic update of its membership; and
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee
+       whose membership must be approved by Board resolution.
+
+       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
+       added as a Legal Affairs Committee member:
+
+          Henri Yandell &lt;bayard@apache.org&gt;
+
+       Special order 7D, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership,
+       was approved by Unanimous Vote.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+Last month, I mentioned a potential trademark infringment issue that was
+brought to our attention.  I contacted the individual requesting more
+information, and have not heard back.  Until I hear more, I have no
+plans of pursing this further.
+
+Sun continues to ignore our request that the licence headers be restored
+on the portions of Glassfish.  I have sent a third request (the first
+was in September) that Sun follow the FSF's recommendations on this matter.
+If Sun continues to drag their feed on this matter, it is time to explore
+other options to get Sun to comply.
+
+While this work has been ongoing for some time, this month there has
+been a marked uptick in the export classification activities and general
+awareness of these ECCN related issues.
+
+Most of the efforts of this month were on trying to refine the ASF's
+Third Party Licensing policy, primarily by attempting to create an
+informal poll.  I seeded this with three hypothetical positions, and
+mostly people were divided into two camps.  One camp didn't see much
+of a dividing line between the first two positions, but clearly saw
+position three as distinct and reacted negatively towards it.  The
+other saw little difference between positions two and three, but reacted
+equally negatively to position 1 as the first camp did to position 3.
+
+A bare minimum that I believe that we can achieve ready consensus on is
+a policy that all sofware developed at the ASF from here on is to be licensed
+under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and that we will take no actions
+that limit our ability to distribute our software under this license.
+Roy has indicated that this may not have been the policy in the distant
+past, but as near as I can tell, it has been the way that we have been
+operating for quite some time now, hence the conclusion that this should
+be able to readily gain consensus.
+
+One world view is that that bare minimum is not enough.  One can argue
+that it makes little sense if our software is licensed under a pragmatic
+license if that sofware is entangled with dependencies that effectively
+eliminate all the pragmatic aspects of our license.
+
+The other world view is that our software is, well, soft; i.e., maleable.
+Our licensees are welcome to modify, combine, and optionally contribute
+back to our code bases.  Furthermore, no matter how hard we try, our
+licensees are operate under a variety of different constraints or have a
+differing interpretations of license compatibility.
+
+Choosing between these two world views is difficult; but given that the
+former can only be executed if there are ample exceptions for "system" or
+"soft" dependencies -- concepts that are both undefinable and all too open
+to gaming -- clearly the latter is easiest to understand and administer.
+Or there is a belief that a "spec" from an industry consortia and with
+no independent implementations somehow makes copyright and patent issues
+less relevant.  In any case, add to all this the evident divide, and the
+first world view becomes not only harder to understand and administer,
+it becomes absolutely unworkable.  Simply put, an excemption for "system"
+dependencies that is based on a "I'll know it when I see it" policy doesn't
+work if a substantial portion of the people who may be drawn upon to express
+an opinion on the subject simply don't believe that any such distinction is
+either necessary or even makes sense as a policy.
+
+Therefore it appears that the only workable policy is one where we continue
+to require PMCs to compile a comprehensive set of LICENSEs to accompany each
+of our releases so that our licensees can make an informed decision.  That,
+and perhaps to we can increase our efforts to educate PMCs as to the effects
+such dependencies have on community size.
+
+While this approach is workable, it is one that may be difficult to reverse.
+Hence, a slow and cautious approach is warranted.  Should there be any
+as of yet unexpressed feedback, now would be a good time to provide it.
+
+I have reviewed the minutes for the meetings of 2005/06/22 and 2007/03/28
+establishing the VP of Legal Affairs and the Legal Affairs Committee
+respectively, and believe that no board resolution and/or explicit approval
+is required for the Legal Affairs Committee to proceed on this matter.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-01-16">
+   January 16, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Request was made that legal/status be updated.
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+The requested FAQ additions have been completed and posted.  These
+additions did attract quite a few comments of support, and everybody had
+more than ample time to comment.  I've seen no negative fallout as of yet
+of these additions.  I mention this because these additions were initially
+controversial, but my impression is that over time some of the participants
+simply got less vocal rather than converted.
+
+Jason Schultz has left his staff attorney position at the EFF.  Fred von
+Lohmann of the EFF has agreed to support us in his place.
+
+We have been informed of a potential tradmark infringment issue.  I shoud
+have more details by the next meeting.
+
+There is a backlog of items that need to be addressed, preferably in
+parallel rather than serially.  Rather than waste report time on what
+I perceive to be the biggest item, namely competing the Third Party
+Licensing policy, time permitting, I've added a discussion item in the
+hopes that we can come to a quick consensus on the approach.  If quick
+consensus isn't achievable here, then the hope is that this will serve
+as a heads up so that the interested parties can participate in the
+discussion on legal-discuss.
+
+Other items in the backlog:
+  Third Party Licensing:
+    Minor update to to add OSOA as category A
+    Additional updates to cover notices of optional dependencies (log4cxx, apr)
+    Need a policy on whether depencencies on Ruby Gems are permissable (Buildr)
+  WSRP4J licensing issues (Portals)
+  Fork FAQ
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-11-14">
+   November 14, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       No written report submitted.
+
+       Brief discussion on the possibility of doing a BOF at ApacheCon.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-10-17">
+   October 17, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+After an extended quiet period, I thought I would collect up a
+few updates to the website, but that re-awoke the discussion.
+What's cool is that this time around, there actually are more
+people than Doug actually proposing actual wording.  I'm
+convinced that we are continuing to make forward progress.
+
+Backlog of items include following up with Sun on following the
+licensing terms for Jasper, and a "fork FAQ".
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-09-19">
+   September 19, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       Brief discussion concerning the possible need to change the bylaws.
+       We decided not to pursue such a change.
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+Relatively quiet (and short) month.
+
+I believe that we are making progress on the Y! proposed additions to the
+FAQ, and should be able to close shortly.  Short summary of the key issue:
+while the ASF as a whole does not confer any official status to
+"subprojects", this proposed FAQ would officially recognize that a PMC
+may, in fact, produce a number of independent "products".
+
+Simon Phipps forwarded to me a writeup by the FSF on how to retain 
+appropriate copyright headers on works derived from non-GPL codebases
+and incorporated into GPL codebases.  I posted this link on
+legal-internal, and it didn't provoke any objections, so I asked
+Simon to follow these instructions on the Jasper/Glassfish code.  I
+will follow up to ensure that this is done.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-08-29">
+   August 29, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+* Continuing to work on Yahoo! patent scope FAQ.
+* Updated web page concerning Apache License and GPL compatibility
+* Updated 3rd party policy, resolving Geronimo and MyFaces issue
+* Participated in two call with ASF council regarding JCK/FOU issue
+* Continuing to work with Sun over ASF license code issues in Glassfish
+
+My goal continues to be to delegate more of this.  If necessary,
+I will recruit more people onto the legal committee in order to 
+make this happen.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-07-18">
+   July 18, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt / Henning]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+ 7. Special Orders
+
+    E. Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software
+       Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the
+       periodic update of its membership; and
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee
+       whose membership must be approved by Board resolution.
+
+       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
+       added as a Legal Affairs Committee members:
+          Sam Ruby &lt;rubys@apache.org&gt;
+
+       Special order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was
+       approved by Unanimous Vote.
+
+
+    F. Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs
+
+       WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed 
+       Cliff Schmidt to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, 
+       and
+
+       WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation
+       of Cliff Schmidt from the office of Vice President, Legal 
+       Affairs, and
+
+       WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee has recommended Sam Ruby as
+       the successor to the post;
+
+       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Cliff Schmidt is relieved 
+       and discharged from the duties and responsibilities of the office
+       of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and
+
+       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Sam Ruby be and hereby is appointed 
+       to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, to serve in
+       accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of
+       Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, 
+       resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
+       successor is appointed.
+
+       Special order 7F, Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs, was
+       approved by Unanimous Vote.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+As mentioned in last month's report, I wish to resign as VP of Legal
+Affairs.  The Legal Affairs Committee has discussed possible 
+replacements over the last month and have reached consensus on Sam
+Ruby, who is not currently on the committee.  Therefore, I have 
+prepared two resolutions for the board to vote on: one to add Sam to
+the committee (being a board/executive committee) and one to have him
+replace me as VP.
+
+There are no other issues requring board attention this month.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-06-20">
+   June 20, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt / Greg]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+On May 31st, the FSF released its "last call draft" of the 
+GPLv3.  In this draft and its associated press releases, the
+FSF prominently states that there is no longer a concern 
+about the Apache License being "incompatible" with the GPLv3.
+The compatibility issue is describing whether they see a 
+problem with an Apache-Licensed component being included 
+within a larger GPLv3-licensed work.  This is what they no 
+longer see a problem with.  Of course, there would still be 
+much concern and debate about the licensing restrictions of a
+larger Apache-Licensed work that included a GPLv3-licensed
+component.
+
+The only other issue to report is that the legal affairs 
+committee has been up and running for well over a month.  In
+fact, I coordinated approval of the FSF's proposed GPLv3 
+wording with the committee (although sadly didn't plan far
+enough advance to coordinate this report).  I will soon be
+asking the committee for nominations and an election of a 
+new VP of Legal Affairs, with a proposed resolution before
+the Board by next month's meeting.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-04-25">
+   April 25, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Other Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       See Attachment 1
+
+       Cliff indicated that, assuming the current "incompatibility"
+       between GPLv3 and AL 2.0 is resolved, he does not foresee any
+       further potential conflicts.
+
+       Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+As I mentioned in my post to the board@ list shortly after last Board
+meeting, the FSF's third discussion draft of GPLv3 included a note
+that GPLv3 would not be compatible with the Apache License due to the
+indemnification provision.  Both Larry Rosen and I have been in touch
+with the FSF and SFLC and expect this statement of incompatibility 
+will soon be reversed without any change in the Apache License.
+
+The Board approved my resolution to establish a Legal Affairs 
+Committee at last month's meeting.  However, I have been lame in 
+getting things started due to a shortage of available time in the last
+few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball rolling this week.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-03-28">
+   March 28, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       I have proposed a new Legal Affairs Committee to 
+       distribute the current legal affairs workload to a 
+       coordinated group ASF members, to assign responsibility 
+       for legal policy deliberation and decision making to the
+       same group under the supervision of the board, and to 
+       provide a structured means of participation and 
+       familiarization for those interested in taking over the 
+       Legal VP job one day.  The resolution is on the agenda.  
+       It is currently written as an Executive committee, but 
+       we can discuss if that is best.
+
+       I've worked with Geir on issues related to the JCK 
+       licensing problems, but I will let him report on that.
+
+ 8. Special Orders
+
+    C. Establish the Legal Affairs Committee
+
+       WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
+       interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
+       Foundation's purpose to create an Executive Committee charged 
+       with establishing and managing legal policies based on the 
+       advice of legal counsel and the interests of the Foundation; 
+       and
+
+       WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes the existing office of 
+       Vice President of Legal Affairs will remain a valuable role 
+       within the Foundation and would benefit from the creation of such
+       a committee.  
+
+       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an ASF Executive Committee, 
+       to be known as the "Legal Affairs Committee", be and hereby is 
+       established pursuant to the Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it 
+       further
+
+       RESOLVED, that the Legal Affairs Committee be and hereby is
+       responsible for establishing and managing legal policies based 
+       on the advice of legal counsel and the interests of the 
+       Foundation; and be it further
+
+       RESOLVED, that the responsibilities of the Vice President of 
+       Legal Affairs shall henceforth include management of the Legal 
+       Affairs Committee as its chair; and be it further
+
+       RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
+       hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
+       Legal Affairs Committee:
+
+         Cliff Schmidt
+         Davanum Srinivas
+         Garrett Rooney
+         Geir Magnusson
+         Jim Jagielski
+         Justin Erenkrantz
+         Noel Bergman
+         Robert Burrell Donkin
+         Roy Fielding
+         William Rowe
+
+       Special Order 6C, Establish the Legal Affairs Committee,
+       was approved by Unanimous Vote.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-02-21">
+   February 21, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+    A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       The CLA FAQ proposed at last month's meeting was reviewed
+       by our counsel.  Small changes were made and an additional
+       Q&amp;A was added to clarify the future patent claims issue.
+       The FAQs have been posted to legal-discuss where there is
+       some discussion to make a very minor clarification.  In short,
+       I believe this issue is pretty much resolved.
+
+       A pretty bad trademark violation was reported, which I forwarded
+       to the PRC and assisted them in an initial draft (with a review
+       through counsel).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-01-17">
+   January 17, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       The only issue to report this month is the patent license FAQ.
+       Following the plan I suggested in October, I've taken the FAQ
+       proposed by Doug and agreed to by Roy (which addresses the 
+       concern for consistency with Roy's public statements on the topic
+       while he served as ASF Chairman) and asked our counsel to review
+       and advise.  Barring any legal concerns from counsel, I recommend
+       posting this FAQ.  Incidentally, the question part of the FAQ is
+       nearly identical to the one proposed in our September meeting;
+       however, the answer no longer has the problem raised by some
+       directors (that it was attempting to answer more than the  
+       question).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-12-20">
+   December 20, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+        CLA UPDATE: I sent an update to legal-discuss last week to 
+            let everyone know that the plan is to publish a document
+            that describes the original intention behind some of the
+            ambiguities in the CLA and then to discuss the idea of
+            a new version.  Roy has agreed to write the "original
+            intention" doc based on what statements he had made about
+            the CLA's interpretation while he was ASF chair.
+
+        GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: The SFLC contacted me about the latest
+            proposed changes to the patent licensing in the next 
+            draft of GPLv3.  I am reviewing now to ensure these 
+            changes would still allow Apache-Licensed works to be
+            included in GPLv3-licensed works.
+
+        STANDARDS LICENSING: I reviewed the BPEL specification patent
+            licenses for Apache ODE.  The licenses would not be 
+            acceptable by the ASF; however, there do not currently 
+            appear to be any patents to license.  So, I see no problem 
+            with ODE implementing the BPEL spec.  Another spec reviewed
+            was the Yahoo-submitted IETF RFC on DomainKeys.  Noel
+            submitted this to legal-internal by Noel for review during
+            ApacheCon US.  I reviewed and commented on it there; while
+            not ideal, it appears reasonable and should not hold back
+            our development.  My analyses for both BPEL and DomainKeys
+            was approved by our legal counsel on legal-internal. 
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-11-15">
+   November 15, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       Cliff reported that work is continuing on the "crypto export"
+       clarifications for use within the ASF. Also being worked on
+       is the standards licensing. Cliff noted that SenderID is
+       covered under the Open Specification promise, and therefore
+       removes any restrictions on use.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-10-25">
+   October 25, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       Cliff reported that during ApacheCon, the CCLA issue was further
+       discussed with many people, especially Roy and Doug Cutting. Both
+       Roy and Doug were happy with the approach taken and Roy committed
+       to "writing up" what his intents were with the CCLA, so that
+       misinterpretation of the letter and spirit of the CCLA no longer
+       exists.
+       
+       Cliff indicated his desire to create a sort of Legal Committee,
+       similar to the PRC or Security Team, to allow for a wider
+       range of volunteers to help with the various legal issues and
+       questions still being worked on. His hope is also that this
+       will provide an opportunity for him to resign from the VP of
+       Legal Affairs position after a period of time.
+       
+       Cliff reported that a number of Universities and Colleges have
+       contacted him regarding their own efforts in creating suitable
+       licenses for their open source educational software. Cliff
+       suggested that the ASF possible provide feedback and insights
+       regarding our experiences with the AL as well as the iCLA and
+       CCLAs.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-09-20">
+   September 20, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+        CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: This work has been complete for over a 
+            month and projects are now starting to use the docs/process.
+            At this stage it still requires me to work closely with the
+            project to ensure they understand the docs, but the system 
+            is working.  This will scale better as the docs are improved
+            through experience.   
+ 
+        STANDARDS LICENSING: The standards patent covenant that I have
+            mentioned giving feedback on over the last couple reports
+            was made public about one week ago: the Microsoft "Open
+            Specification Promise".  While it is not perfect, I 
+            believe it should not block PMCs wishing to implement 
+            covered specifications.
+
+        USPTO/OSDL's OSAPA: The Open Source As Prior Art initiative 
+            met in Portland, OR, last week for two days.  I was able
+            to join the group for the second day to learn a little 
+            about what is being planned.  Will follow-up with email
+            to board@.
+
+        THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but
+            hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement 
+            approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports)
+            and then call it final, and ideally have it included in
+            same email to committers as alerts on src header and 
+            crypto docs.  (No change since last month) 
+
+        OSS PROJECT CODE MOVED TO ASF: When an incubating project's
+            initial code base is submitted to the ASF, our CLA 
+            requires that "work that is not Your original creation"
+            must be submitted "separately from any Contribution,
+            identifying the complete details of its source and...
+            conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of
+            a third-party: [named here]".  This presents a problem
+            when the code base is an existing OSS project with 
+            intermingled IP from various sources.  One solution I've
+            seen in the past is for the multiple authors to jointly
+            sign the same grant; however, due to a few problems with
+            this approach, I've worked with one set of initial 
+            contributors to create a script that uses svn blame/log 
+            and a mapping file (svn id or a rev # --&gt; legal owner) to
+            output an exhaustive set of annotations to satisfy this
+            requirement.     
+
+        PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I am late on getting this report
+            done.  I'm still having discussions with our lawyers and
+            other members of the open source community on a daily /
+            weekly basis.  The goals of the report are to detail the
+            ambiguities in the patent language of the current CCLA 
+            and to suggest that the board consider options, such as 
+            specific clarifications, revisions, and supplementary 
+            processes.  These can be discussed at today's meeting if
+            the board wishes; in addition, Doug Cutting would like the
+            board to consider an FAQ to address some aspect of the
+            CCLA's ambiguity.
+
+        Cliff also reported that he will commit to having the
+        3rd Party issues complete by ApacheCon Austin.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-08-16">
+   August 16, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+        LICENSING HEADER: About to move the deadline back to Nov 1st
+            due to my slowness in getting out an email to committers@
+            pointing to new policy.  However, many projects are 
+            already switching over from pointers on legal-discuss. 
+
+        CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: Lots of work with APR and especially 
+            James on fine-tuning the format for the email reports and
+            web page.  Have updated the docs to reflect this.  Pretty
+            much done now -- just need to include this on the 
+            committers@ email (see above re: license header).
+ 
+        THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but
+            hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement 
+            approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports)
+            and then call it final, and ideally have it included in
+            same email to committers as alerts on src header and 
+            crypto docs.  (No change since last month) 
+
+        PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've continued to do some 
+            research and have some discussions with various companies
+            and other open source organizations on this topic. I 
+            still hope to have a report comparing the options by the 
+            end of this month. 
+
+        STANDARDS LICENSING: A large software company will be soon
+            be releasing a new patent license (actually a promise
+            not to sue), under which several specifications will be
+            covered.  Much of our feedback has been incorporated 
+            into the latest draft.  I expect we will be satisfied 
+            with the final result (TBA this month).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-07-19">
+   July 19, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+        LEGAL HOME PAGE: Have created new legal home page with links
+            to docs relevant for users and committers.  Also posting
+            and linking to these legal reports for interested 
+            committers to track progress.  Please let me know if 
+            there are any concerns about this.  Will publicize the
+            legal home page and its links on Friday in email to 
+            committers@. 
+
+        LICENSING HEADER: The final version is now posted, linked
+            from the new legal web page: apache.org/legal.  Email to
+            committers will go out on Friday. 
+
+        CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: A nearly final version of this is posted
+            including a lengthy FAQ from various dev-list 
+            discussions.  Last step is to work with dreid on project-
+            specific RDF files that build final required web page.
+            Hoping to have this also done and in email to committers
+            on Friday.
+
+        THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but
+            hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement 
+            approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports)
+            and then call it final, and ideally have it included in
+            same email to committers as alerts on src header and 
+            crypto docs. 
+
+        PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've tried to keep the board 
+            aware enough of this discussion over the last 2-3 months
+            to jump in as any director sees fit; however, recent
+            discussions on board@ lead me to believe that I should
+            request this to become an item of new business, rather
+            than wait for another director to inquire more about it.
+            I suggest a brief conversation on the topic today, 
+            followed by a more detailed presentation of the concerns
+            of each side of the issue at some point in the near 
+            future.
+
+        SFLC LETTER ON ODF: After clarifying with SFLC that we did
+            not want their letter to represent an "Apache position"
+            on ODF nor did we want our name used in any PR on the
+            subject, I agreed to the text of their letter.  Since 
+            publishing the letter several weeks ago, they appear to
+            have honored my requests completely.
+
+        STANDARDS LICENSING: I continue to have conversations with
+            vendors on how they can improve the licensing of their
+            essential patent claims for specifications that Apache
+            would consider implementing.  I'm actually seeing some
+            progress/willingness to revise from vendors.
+</pre>
 </div>
-                 
+
 <h4 id="2006-06-27">
    June 27, 2006
 </h4>
 <div class="section-content">
 <pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
          LICENSING HEADER: I sent a summary of the resolution passed
             at last month's meeting to the legal-discuss list and
             am compiling a short FAQ based on questions from that
@@ -122,8 +1820,774 @@
             specification.  If we agree with the draft, they would 
             like to issue a statement that they are representing the
             positions on two of their clients, the ASF and FSF.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-05-24">
+   May 24, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       LICENSING HEADER: I have submitted a resolution for the
+            Board's consideration to set a new policy for source
+            code headers.  In brief, the headers will no longer 
+            include any copyright notice, only a licensing notice
+            and a mention of the NOTICE file for copyright info.
+            The NOTICE file will include the ASF's copyright notice,
+            in addition to other required notices.  Copyright 
+            notices in third-party components distributed within ASF
+            products will not be touched.
+
+       CRYPTO EXPORT POLICY: I have posted a crypto policy at 
+            http://apache.org/dev/crypto.html.  The policy should
+            answer most of our questions in this area, but will be
+            gradually enhanced over time.  
+
+       GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: After a close review of the first draft 
+            of GPLv3, I brought up potential incompatibility issues 
+            with the Apache License to the GPLv3 discussion committee
+            that I serve on.  The FSF's counsel hopes these issues
+            can be addressed in the next draft.  As I've said before, 
+            both the FSF and the SFLC continue to be unwavering in 
+            their dedication to ensure GPLv3 is compatible with Apache
+            License v2.
+
+       PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've spent a lot of time with 
+            one particular corporate legal staff lately with their
+            questions of whether the CCLA implies that the set of all
+            possible patent claims being licensed can be known at the
+            time of contribution.  It's obvious why a corporation 
+            would want the answer to be affirmative; however, such an
+            answer would not protect the project's work from patent
+            infringement claims by a contributor regarding how their
+            contribution is combined with other things.  It may be
+            worth revising the (C)CLA language to make this more 
+            clear.
+
+       ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED AGREEMENTS: Now allowed.  See the 
+            Secretary's report.
+
+       LICENSING AUDITS: I work closely with the Eclipse Foundation's
+            IP Manager, who continues to inform me of apparent 
+            inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the licensing of
+            ASF products.  I've been asking PMCs to address these 
+            issues as they come up, but what we really need is an
+            internal audit on each product to get these problems 
+            fixed.  Before we can do that, we need complete 
+            documentation on the things an audit should look for and
+            how they should be corrected.  I will likely make this a
+            priority for the "Docathon" at ApacheCon EU next month. 
+
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: Due to the issues above, I've neglected to
+            make the few remaining changes to the draft licensing
+            policy doc and publish the official version.  As I 
+            mentioned last month, I intend to tell PMCs that all new
+            products MUST conform to the policy, but that all 
+            existing products that do not currently conform need to
+            only take one action over the next six months: report 
+            where/how they are not conforming so that the practical
+            impact of the policy can be better understood without
+            yet requiring substantial changes.  The philosophy 
+            behind this "impact evaluation period" is that the 
+            policy was primarily intended to document the mostly
+            unwritten rules today and to choose one rule when 
+            multiple exist across the ASF.  Now that I've cleared
+            the license header and crypto issues off the high
+            priority list, I hope to focus exclusively (as much as
+            possible) on getting the 1.0 version out.
+
+ 6. Special Orders
+
+    C. Establish guidelines for handling copyright notices and license
+       headers.
+
+         WHEREAS, the copyright of contributions to The Apache
+         Software Foundation remains with the contribution's owner(s),
+         but the copyright of the collective work in each Foundation
+         release is owned by the Foundation,
+
+         WHEREAS, each file within a Foundation release often includes
+         contributions from multiple copyright owners,
+
+         WHEREAS, the Foundation has observed that per-file attribution
+         of authorship does not promote collaborative development,
+
+         WHEREAS, inclusion of works that have not been directly
+         submitted by the copyright owners to the Foundation for
+         development does not present the same collaborative
+         development issues and does not allow the owners to consider
+         the Foundation's copyright notice policies;
+
+         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the case of copyright
+         notices in files contributed and licensed to The Apache
+         Software Foundation, the copyright owner (or owner's agent)
+         must either: remove such notices, move them to the NOTICE 
+         file associated with each applicable project release, or
+         provide written permission for the Foundation to make such
+         removal or relocation of the notices, and be it further
+
+         RESOLVED, that each release shall include a NOTICE file for
+         such copyright notices and other notices required to accompany
+         the distribution, and be it further
+
+         RESOLVED, that the NOTICE file shall begin with the following
+         text, suitably modified to reflect the product name, version,
+         and year(s) of distribution of the current and past releases:
+
+           Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
+           Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
+
+           This product includes software developed at
+           The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
+           
+         and be it further
+
+         RESOLVED, that files licensed to The Apache Software
+         Foundation shall be labeled with the following notice:
+
+           Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+           or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+           distributed with this work for additional information
+           regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+           to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+           "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+           with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+             http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+           Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+           software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+           "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+           KIND, either express or implied.  See the License for the
+           specific language governing permissions and limitations
+           under the License.
  
- </pre>
+         and be it further
+
+         RESOLVED, that for the case of works that have not been
+         directly submitted by the copyright owners to the Foundation
+         for development, the associated copyright notices for the work
+         shall not be moved, removed, or modified. 
+
+       By Unanimous Vote, Special Order 6C, Establish guidelines for
+       handling copyright notices and license headers, was Approved.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-04-26">
+   April 26, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       Cliff reported that the 3rd Party License report will
+       likely be officially released later on this month (April),
+       at which point he will start on the Copyright/Header
+       issues. Regarding the 3rd Party License report, it is
+       fully expected that, even though discussed and reviewed,
+       there will be further discussions upon release. The board's
+       stand is that we should release it "as is" and retify
+       things if required. All new projects will need to adhere
+       to the policy; existing projects will be given time to
+       bring their codebases up to policy standards.
+
+       The board expressed their appreciation to Cliff for
+       a Job Well Done.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-03-15">
+   March 15, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: After nearly two months of review on the 
+            board@ list and one month of review by pmcs@, I've
+            finally posted the latest draft of the third-party
+            licensing policy to the legal-discuss list.  My goal
+            is to get all new comments or concerns collected by
+            the end of the month, and resolve all issues to get  
+            a final, official, v1.0 release in April.  I will 
+            also be trying to solicit user comments through the
+            feather blog and a brief pointer sent to a few of 
+            the project user lists.  However, I would also like 
+            to explicitly verify that there is a consensus from
+            the Board in support of the guiding principles* 
+            behind the policy and the resulting license criteria**.
+         *http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#principles
+        **http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criteria
+
+       LICENSING HEADER, ETC: Now that the third-party policy 
+            doc is out there, my next major project is to draft
+            and get our counsel to approve a document that 
+            updates our source code licensing header,  
+            describes where to place copyright notices, various 
+            third-party licenses, explains how to deal with 
+            crypto export issues, and more.  Although I think it
+            will be useful to our committers to have this all in 
+            one document, I won't hold up getting a resolution on
+            the license header/copyright notice issue to wait for
+            the rest of the document.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-01-18">
+   January 18, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+       GPLv3: I just finished attending the GPLv3 conference at MIT,
+            during which the first "discussion draft" of the GPLv3
+            was presented.  The most relevant news is that the current
+            discussion draft includes a "License Compatibility" 
+            section that allows the inclusion of Apache-Licensed (v2.0)
+            independent works within GPLv3-licensed programs.  This 
+            section may change within the next year, but it remains 
+            clear that Eben and RMS will continue to make this sort
+            of compatibility with the Apache License a priority.  The 
+            other news is that I have accepted an invitation to 
+            represent the ASF on one the GPLv3 "discussion committees".
+
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: I will be sending out a draft policy on third-
+            party IP to the board@ list this Friday, January 20th.
+
+        Cliff further reported that the Copyright Notice Policy
+        was still being worked on, and will be finished some time
+        after the completion of the 3rd Party License Policy
+        Report.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-12-21">
+   December 21, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+       PATENT ISSUES: I had a second meeting with Microsoft about 
+            possible improvements to the patent licenses that they
+            have stated would apply to various WS specifications at
+            OASIS.  Details can be found in my summary post to 
+            legal-internal on 6 Dec 05 (Message-Id: 
+            &lt;81007DBD-EBD8-45DC-8A35-0FB8F4F3FC11@apache.org&gt;.  I've
+            since asked them about the possibility of issuing a
+            Covenant not to enforce patent claims, similar to what they
+            recently did for Office 2003 Reference Schemas.  No 
+            response on that one just yet.
+
+       GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: Eben Moglen and RMS have each personally
+            asked that the ASF participate in the GPLv3 input/feedback
+            process, primarily to help ensure compatibility between
+            the GPL and Apache licenses.  I plan to attend the first 
+            GPLv3 conference at MIT in January for that purpose.
+
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: After talking with 20+ ASF members at ApacheCon
+            about a proposed licensing policy, I am now ready to float
+            something formal by the membership.  The short version is 
+            that I believe we need to draw the licensing line at the
+            ability for our users to redistribute all parts of an 
+            official ASF distribution under their own license, as long 
+            as it does not violate the copyright owner's license.  I'm
+            working up a list of  how this would impact the top 30 OSI-
+            approved licenses and a few others, but I can tell you it 
+            would exclude both the LGPL and the Sun Binary Code 
+            License, which is currently used in Apache James. 
+
+       LAME LIST: In prior reports I said I expected to have a policy
+            written on crypto export and copyright notices.  I'm late
+            on both.  I am now able to projects with the correct 
+            procedure for crypto, but I still need to get it formally
+            documented.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-11-16">
+   November 16, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+       SFLC: Justin and I had a kick-off meeting with Eben and two
+            of his lawyers.  Justin and Greg are already working 
+            with one of them to handle any issues with our books 
+            and 501(c)(3) status.  Justin is the point person for
+            this work and will be handling ongoing status in his
+            Treasurer's report.
+
+       BXA/CRYPTO: The Perl folks sent out the required notification 
+            for the mod_ssl stuff.  I've now taken their feedback and
+            drafted a process document to run through counsel.  Jason
+            has referred me to another EFF lawyer with more crypto 
+            export experience who has agreed to review it.  
+
+       COPYRIGHT NOTICS: Our counsel will be giving one final review 
+            on the copyright notice issue starting this Friday 
+            (during a monthly teleconference).  Should have something
+            ready within one week after that.
+
+       LGPL: I'm still waiting on feedback from Eben on my 
+            Java/LGPL position paper that I sent him last month. He
+            wanted to refrain from giving me feedback until 
+            discussing the matter with the FSF. I expect to have 
+            something any day now, since that meeting should have 
+            recently happened.  I recommend we hold off any decision
+            to allow distribution of LGPL components within non-
+            incubating product JARs until getting this one last 
+            opinion from Eben and then bouncing it off the rest of 
+            our counsel.  However, I do not think we should have any 
+            legal concern about separately distributing the LGPL and 
+            ASF component that depends on it; both Jason and Larry 
+            have signed off on this question.
+          
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: In the process of working on a document to 
+            get us to a comprehensive policy on what third-party 
+            software we will distribute and how, I have created a 
+            little matrix to summarize the issues across the most 
+            common licenses of interest to the ASF today.  I will 
+            send this matrix to legal-discuss list today for 
+            discussion.  It might also be helpful for discussing 
+            how LGPL is similar and different from licenses like
+            the CPL and CDDL.
+
+       ASF LEGAL POLICY DOC: All these issues and more are being 
+            written to live within a series of ASF legal policy 
+            documents that I am hoping to have approved at or soon 
+            after ApacheCon.
+
+       HOUSEKEEPING: I've created a new directory /foundation/legal/
+            Board to include all Legal reports and approved 
+            resolutions with a README indicating that they are 
+            compiled there for convenience and with a pointer to 
+            the normative versions.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-10-26">
+   October 26, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+       ADDITIONAL COUNSEL: I have signed an agreement with Eben 
+          Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center to have them
+          offer the ASF pro bono legal services.  The first job
+          will be to work with Justin on renewing our 501(c)(3)
+          status and some of the thorny issues we need to resolve
+          to get our books in order.
+
+       BXA/CRYPTO: While I was working on a draft crypto policy, 
+          I was notified that the Perl PMC (and Tomcat?) may not
+          have sent notification to the Bureau of Industry and 
+          Security (BIS, formerly known as BXA).  This has 
+          required me to try out specific guidance on these two 
+          projects, which will hopefully make the formal policy
+          more robust.  I'm still working with the Perl and 
+          Tomcat PMCs to help solve their immediate issues.  Most
+          of the relevant discussion has been cc'd to 
+          legal-internal.
+
+       COPYRIGHT NOTICES: Last month I reported that I was getting
+          general agreement from our counsel to move to a policy 
+          that requires only a licensing notice, but not a 
+          copyright notice at the top of each source file.  I
+          regret to say that I have made very little progress on 
+          this issue since last month.  I'll have this ready for 
+          next board meeting.  
+
+       LGPL: Last month I reported that this issue needs to be 
+          addressed within the context of an overall policy stating
+          what licenses are acceptable for ASF distributions to 
+          take dependencies on and distribute (see "Third Party IP"
+          issue below).  Ten days ago, I sent Eben Moglen (in his
+          role as general counsel for the FSF) a five-page document
+          (including a developer-focused FAQ) on my interpretation 
+          of exactly what the LGPL allows and does not allow related
+          to Java dependencies and distribution requirements.  He 
+          has not given me feedback on this yet, but has been 
+          talking about releasing a similar position paper on behalf
+          of the FSF.      
+
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: Last month I reported that most of the 
+          licenses we thought we could sublicense under the Apache 
+          License (including the CPL) can really only be distributed 
+          under their own license.  So, we now need to figure out what
+          makes a license okay to include in an Apache distribution.  
+          I've made very little progress on this in the last month, but 
+          I hope to have a policy written, discussed, and ready for 
+          approval by the December board meeting.
+
+       ASF LEGAL POLICY DOC: Although I did not make as much progress
+          as I'd hoped on the copyright notice and third-party IP 
+          issues over the last month, I did write up and outline for
+          an overall legal policy doc to address these issues and 
+          others.  The outline (including a brief preview of where
+          the document was probably headed) was sent to legal-discuss.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-09-21">
+   September 21, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+       COPYRIGHT NOTICES: I have gotten Jason, Larry, Robyn, and
+          even Eben Moglen to all agree that we should be fine
+          with no copyright notice at the top of each source file,
+          and instead just include a licensing notice similar to
+          what Roy recently posted to the Board@ list.  The issue
+          that isn't quite solved yet is the mechanics of ensuring
+          any COPYRIGHT file or section of the NOTICE file is in
+          sync with the CLAs and agreements from outside contributors.
+
+       BXA/CRYPTO: I now have an understanding of the open source
+          exception to the crypto export requirements.  I've read
+          through the relevant docs at bxa.doc.gov, eff.org, and
+          a legal opinion from McGlashan &amp; Sarrail dated
+          September 13, 2000, which I found in /foundation/Records/BXA.
+          There was a minor (generally favorable) change to the
+          TSU exception (the one that applies to open source) last
+          December.  The bottom line is that there appears to be no
+          problem with distributing source or binaries as long as we
+          give appropriate notice to the BXA/BIS.  My next step is to
+          get an updated opinion from Jason and publish guidelines to
+          PMCs.
+
+       LGPL: There's the legal requirements side of this issue and
+          the policy side (as with so many things).  I believe I have
+          already completed the due dilligence on the legal
+          requirements side; however, during conversations with Eben
+          Moglen I've found that he plans to publish a document that
+          is explicit about the issues or non-issues with Java and
+          the LGPL.  I will be sending him my view of these issues
+          this week, which I hope will influence what ends up in his
+          document.  On the policy side, we need to stop treating the
+          LGPL differently from other licenses, and instead determine
+          what our policy is for taking dependencies on and
+          distributing third-party IP.
+
+       THIRD-PARTY IP: Any time we bring in third-party IP that is
+          not licensed under the Apache License, we have two choices:
+          a) sublicense the work under the Apache License (if we have
+          the rights to do so), or b) distribute the Apache product
+          under each applicable license and make that clear to our
+          users.  We've been trying to say we're only doing a) so far.
+          However, in my view we are obviously not consistently doing
+          this, nor do I think it is practical to do so.  So, I'm now
+          thinking the best way to address issues of shipping CPL,
+          MPL, CDDL, LGPL, etc. is to stop trying to sublicense them
+          under the Apache License and instead create and implement
+          a policy that allows us to distribute products that contain
+          IP under some set of license terms (including terms outside
+          the scope of the Apache License).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-08-17">
+   August 17, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+    E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+       I've inserted slightly edited versions of the same MPL/NPL
+       and LGPL resolutions, which were tabled last month.
+
+       Since last month's meeting, I have:
+         - confirmed with a second member of ASF's legal counsel
+           that the proposed LGPL policy does not put our product
+           licensing at risk;
+         - posted and discussed the proposed LGPL policy on the 
+           legal-discuss list, where no new concerns were raised 
+           about the licensing ramifications; however there was 
+           concern raised by both outside lawyers and Apache 

[... 262 lines stripped ...]


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


Mime
View raw message