www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From s...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r1228871 - /infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext
Date Sun, 08 Jan 2012 15:38:40 GMT
Author: sebb
Date: Sun Jan  8 15:38:40 2012
New Revision: 1228871

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1228871&view=rev
Log:
Detab

Modified:
    infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext

Modified: infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext?rev=1228871&r1=1228870&r2=1228871&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext (original)
+++ infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/reports.mdtext Sun Jan  8 15:38:40 2012
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ off-list.
 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
+"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
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ quickly.  My feeling is that what we hav
 shouldn't
 be changed unless there is a specific issue.
 
-A company offered Lucene access to archived blog data.	There was a
+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
@@ -500,12 +500,12 @@ smoothly, and does not warrant board att
 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
+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
+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
@@ -603,9 +603,9 @@ Attachment 2: Status report for the Apac
 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
+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
+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.
@@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ month.
        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
        added as a Legal Affairs Committee member:
 
-	  Craig Russell <craig.russell@sun.com>
+          Craig Russell <craig.russell@sun.com>
 
        Special order 7A, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership,
        was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
@@ -810,7 +810,7 @@ Microsoft's
        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
        added as a Legal Affairs Committee member:
 
-	  Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
+          Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
 
        Special order 7D, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership,
        was approved by Unanimous Vote.
@@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ 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
+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
@@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ former can only be executed if there are
 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
+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
@@ -919,14 +919,14 @@ of these additions.  I mention this beca
 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
+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
+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
@@ -1056,7 +1056,7 @@ make this happen.
 
        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
        added as a Legal Affairs Committee members:
-	  Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org>
+          Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org>
 
        Special order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was
        approved by Unanimous Vote.
@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ There are no other issues requring board
 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
+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 
@@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
        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.	
+       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.
 
@@ -1222,16 +1222,16 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
        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
+         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.
@@ -1244,7 +1244,7 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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
+       by our counsel.  Small changes were made and an additional
        Q&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,
@@ -1280,31 +1280,31 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
 
     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. 
+        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. 
 ` 
 
 # November 15, 2006 # {#2006-11-15}
@@ -1354,64 +1354,64 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
 
     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 # --> 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.
+        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 # --> 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.
+        Cliff also reported that he will commit to having the
+        3rd Party issues complete by ApacheCon Austin.
 ` 
 
 # August 16, 2006 # {#2006-08-16}
@@ -1420,36 +1420,36 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
 
     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).
+        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).
 ` 
 
 # July 19, 2006 # {#2006-07-19}
@@ -1458,55 +1458,55 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
 
     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.
+        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.
 ` 
 
 # June 27, 2006 # {#2006-06-27}
@@ -1515,31 +1515,31 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
 
     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
-	    thread.  The summary and FAQ will be linked from a new
-	    apache.org/legal/ home page by the end of the week, and
-	    send a notification of the posting to committers@. I 
-	    originally stated that the new header would need to be
-	    implemented on releases on or after August 1, 2006,
-	    but will push that date back one month, since I was slow
-	    to get this out to all committers. 
-
-	PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: There continues to be some degree
-	    of controversy over my statement on how the CCLA patent
-	    license should be interpreted.  I continue to state 
-	    that the patents are licensed for both the contribution
-	    and combinations of the contribution with the continuing
-	    evolution of the project.  In other words, the ASF is
-	    not interested in contributions with strings attached
-	    (strings = restrictions on what it can be combined with).
-
-	SFLC LETTER ON ODF: The SFLC has asked us to review a draft 
-	    statement on the legal encumbrances of the OASIS ODF
-	    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.
+         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
+            thread.  The summary and FAQ will be linked from a new
+            apache.org/legal/ home page by the end of the week, and
+            send a notification of the posting to committers@. I 
+            originally stated that the new header would need to be
+            implemented on releases on or after August 1, 2006,
+            but will push that date back one month, since I was slow
+            to get this out to all committers. 
+
+        PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: There continues to be some degree
+            of controversy over my statement on how the CCLA patent
+            license should be interpreted.  I continue to state 
+            that the patents are licensed for both the contribution
+            and combinations of the contribution with the continuing
+            evolution of the project.  In other words, the ASF is
+            not interested in contributions with strings attached
+            (strings = restrictions on what it can be combined with).
+
+        SFLC LETTER ON ODF: The SFLC has asked us to review a draft 
+            statement on the legal encumbrances of the OASIS ODF
+            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.
 ` 
 
 # May 24, 2006 # {#2006-05-24}
@@ -1549,145 +1549,145 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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.
+            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.  
+            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.
+            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.
+            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.
+            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. 
+            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.
+            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.
-
-	 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. 
+         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.
+
+         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.
@@ -1721,32 +1721,32 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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
+            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.
+            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.
 ` 
 
 # January 18, 2006 # {#2006-01-18}
@@ -1756,24 +1756,24 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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".
+            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.
+            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.
+        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.
 ` 
 
 # December 21, 2005 # {#2005-12-21}
@@ -1783,39 +1783,39 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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: 
-	    <81007DBD-EBD8-45DC-8A35-0FB8F4F3FC11@apache.org>.  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.
+            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: 
+            <81007DBD-EBD8-45DC-8A35-0FB8F4F3FC11@apache.org>.  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.
+            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. 
+            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.
+            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.
 ` 
 
 # November 16, 2005 # {#2005-11-16}
@@ -1825,57 +1825,57 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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.
+            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.  
+            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.
+            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.
+            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.
+            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.
+            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.
+            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.
 ` 
 
 # October 26, 2005 # {#2005-10-26}
@@ -1885,59 +1885,59 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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.
+          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.
+          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.  
+          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.	   
+          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.
+          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.
+          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.
 ` 
 
 # September 21, 2005 # {#2005-09-21}
@@ -1947,54 +1947,54 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
     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.
+          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 & 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.
+          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 & 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.
+          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).
+          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).
 ` 
 
 # August 17, 2005 # {#2005-08-17}
@@ -2007,20 +2007,20 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
        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 
-	   committers that dependencies on LGPL libraries was not 
-	   in the best interests of some Apache users;
-	 - engaged with representatives of the Mozilla Foundation
-	   to discuss the proposed MPL/NPL licensing policy.  While
-	   they have *not* yet formally indicated their agreement
-	   with our interpretation, they have not yet raised any
-	   new concerns.
+         - 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 
+           committers that dependencies on LGPL libraries was not 
+           in the best interests of some Apache users;
+         - engaged with representatives of the Mozilla Foundation
+           to discuss the proposed MPL/NPL licensing policy.  While
+           they have *not* yet formally indicated their agreement
+           with our interpretation, they have not yet raised any
+           new concerns.
 
        Future action items include resolving the BXA/crypto issue 
        and investigating and proposing policies for the CPL, EPL,
@@ -2036,7 +2036,7 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
 
        WHEREAS, some Project Management Committees (PMCs) within
        The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expect to better serve 
-       their mission through the use and redistribution of the	
+       their mission through the use and redistribution of the
        executable form of existing source code licensed under the 
        Mozilla Public License (MPL) or Netscape Public License (NPL); 
        and
@@ -2191,7 +2191,7 @@ few weeks.  I'll start getting the ball 
        License, Version 2.0.
 
        Discussion occurred that raised questions: Is the FSF position
-       public?	Will downstream users be comfortable with this?  The
+       public?  Will downstream users be comfortable with this?  The
        conclusion was to give 3rd parties time to react to this
        proposed resolution prior to voting on it.  Resolution 6E
        was tabled with general consent.



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


Mime
View raw message