www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric McDonald <the.eric.mcdon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:23:39 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.

On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> 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.

Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf yesterday.)

> - 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.

I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
(Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)

> - 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.

Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
text though.)

> 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?

I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
explicitly to ASF licenses.

> 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

Eric

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


Mime
View raw message