www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:53:19 GMT
A few brief unofficial observations:

- Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason 
behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y 
project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.

- Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the 
current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all 
content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites), 
unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

- Similarly, I believe the license is (C) the ASF, since it was a 
collaborative work done by our organization for our own specific 
purposes.  I wonder if this (and perhaps in theory some parts of the 
main apache.org website) is one place that we should clearly state our 
(C).  This kind of organizational information and policy is more 
important to the ASF as a whole organization, and I think should be 
different than our typical attitude to our project's code (i.e. where we 
generally believe individual contributors hold copyright to their 
specific bits, and simply license the collective work).

- From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would 
complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in there 
somewhere.  Apache is a trademark for our community developed software 
products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software 
consumers derives from our specific license.

Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As 
long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"?  Or am I 
misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?

These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very 
few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer 
energy to pursue them.

Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.

- Shane

On 9/29/2012 1:15 PM, Eric McDonald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have what may be considered an odd question, but it is one I'm
> guessing someone else must've raised before. I have read the various
> FAQs, pertaining to the 2.0 license and Apache IP in general, on the
> apache.org Web site, have looked briefly at the archives for this list
> (which don't seem to be searchable), and have googled around some, but
> have been unable to find a definitive answer to my question.
>
> So, the question is: under what license, if any, is the Apache License
> 2.0 released? Or, is it considered to be in the public domain? (To
> clarify, I'm _not_ asking about the effects of the Apache License 2.0
> upon software released under it, but about the license itself.) I can
> reasonably guess that the copyright holder for the license is the Apache
> Software Foundation, but cannot find any information about what terms,
> if any, the copyright holder may have released the license.
>
> Creative Commons has the following statement at
> http://creativecommons.org/policies#license :
> "... Although we do not assert a copyright in the text of our licenses,
> we must assert our trademark rights to assure uniform use of Creative
> Commons’ trademarks, including design marks (e.g., buttons) that
> represent and point to our licenses. Accordingly, to prevent confusion,
> modified versions of Creative Commons licenses must not be labeled with
> “Creative Commons,” “CC” or other Creative Commons trademarks, and must
> not be associated with Creative Commons license buttons or other design
> marks."
>
> Also, Wikipedia claims that the BSD licenses are in the public domain
> (although I cannot find a citation to back those claims).
>
> The short of my question is this: suppose that someone mostly likes the
> Apache License 2.0, but has a few tweaks that he or she wishes to make
> to it. Would that person be able to create a derivative work from the
> license, and, if so, under what conditions? (Note: I understand that
> there is some concern about license proliferation in the FOSS licensing
> community. I am hoping to avoid any debate about this concern that my
> question may trigger. However, I am happy to discuss what some
> hypothetical tweaks to the license might be.)
>
> Thanks,
>    Eric
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


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


Mime
View raw message