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 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 01:53:24 GMT
On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:

> If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache license but something
else.  No one here is going to care that you copied most of the Apache license to create your
new license, so long as there is no confusion between the two.  What more do you really need
to know?

Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.

Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
it sounds like no one cares.

There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
though.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

Cheers,
  Eric

P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
or projects of the ASF.

> Ralph
> 
> 
> On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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