Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10DD9E5E7 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34105 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 12:33:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 33473 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 12:33:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 33318 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2013 12:33:14 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:33:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-ie0-f177.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username nslater, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:33:13 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 16so4268823iea.22 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=YgCJOJkdukBjFMcV88wPWZyDrzVcMvlgDV6sFfOrlUc=; b=RZ0njhpCafybWQiKZBGtkJoZOQ2BAEgXKx87yzWOONqA/IOkVT9IqaGyaccWHr3LZK 8H1jVluY//F4Uf25QmcK7WnIaPiWEfa2vI9k57q+nuvL3LUCaF2T/hPkOgPiRFj6IMUn hNUCBZqXFRKiJMTuFkrrf5EyGxGsgJr9yDbiWBusMRL42r4RNRFt22RSxzrKLxDwaMLO gORFjJ6lEu1cgDfxdyeqAmZck4bcvEMyESCXEpWe8xjSGuLJejEZsKKs+4Lds5q0nhbn 1+d/27Is4jp1c/l5Sj4Lzz+fQ1UcIT9GxMkwMtt63UFDOasmtkal4In+aOhrKWKDOSVZ g7sQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.50.71 with SMTP id z7mr4384272icf.39.1363350792868; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.188.202 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [178.250.115.206] In-Reply-To: <023401cda19f$83900c20$8ab02460$@rosenlaw.com> References: <023401cda19f$83900c20$8ab02460$@rosenlaw.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:33:12 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: License Stewards From: Noah Slater To: legal-discuss@apache.org, lrosen@rosenlaw.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba2120fdb7477104d7f5d71e X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlFgXUSpsucpj3p9nq6A8xDQZTUhcHaxegsecCa/7nZ0OE9BJh2xgJ6Y0BH6E5Mz2KpCOWK --90e6ba2120fdb7477104d7f5d71e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Larry, Did you get a response to this? Best, On 3 October 2012 20:44, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > A recent thread on the legal-discuss@ list at Apache asked whether > someone could take the Apache License 2.0 and revise it for their own > purposes. After a side trip I took into the esoteric question about wheth= er > a copyright license could itself be copyrighted, I bring the discussion t= o > this license-discuss@ list at OSI along with a bit of history. (I=92m > copying the legal-discuss@apache list only for closing the circle.)**** > > ** ** > > In the olden days, open source licenses usually contained a copyright > statement and the identification of a =93license steward=94. This person = or > organization (e.g., RMS/FSF for the GPL licenses; IBM for the CPL; and > Mitchell Baker at what was then the Mozilla Project for the MPL) reputedl= y > had exclusive control over future license versions. Indeed, Mitchell took > offense at that time because, without her permission, I had revised the M= PL > license into a version I thought was easier to read and understand (the > Jabber license, since deprecated). **** > > ** ** > > Whether or not the license steward role was legally significant, it > certainly raised control issues in the community and created animosity ov= er > license language purity even where personal offense was not intended. Eve= n > though the goal was to change the license for some presumably good legal > effect, some people still took offense when their =93own=94 words were ch= anged. > **** > > ** ** > > When I released the AFL/OSL licenses in early drafts, I omitted any > declaration of license steward but I asserted with a copyright notice tha= t > I was the author of those licenses. Several people (including, I remember= , > Mitchell Baker) complained that I was claiming control over a license tha= t > people might want to enhance or change. Nobody trusted that I personally > (or my heirs) would forever have the good of the community at heart. **** > > ** ** > > I agreed with them. That was my incentive to write section 16 of those > licenses, which declared authorship but disclaimed control over changes. > This section 16 also carefully prohibited what was then characterized as > =93relicensing=94 of existing works; declared that the name of the licens= e was > exclusive; and reminded the world that only OSI could bless a revised > license as =93open source=94.**** > > ** ** > > Here=92s what section 16 of the OSL says:**** > > ** ** > > 16) Modification of This License. This License is Copyright =A9 2005 > Lawrence Rosen. Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or communicate > this License without modification. Nothing in this License permits You to > modify this License as applied to the Original Work or to Derivative Work= s. > However, You may modify the text of this License and copy, distribute or > communicate your modified version (the "Modified License") and apply it t= o > other original works of authorship subject to the following conditions: (= i) > You may not indicate in any way that your Modified License is the "Open > Software License" or "OSL" and you may not use those names in the name of > your Modified License; (ii) You must replace the notice specified in the > first paragraph above with the notice "Licensed under name here>" or with a notice of your own that is not confusingly similar = to > the notice in this License; and (iii) You may not claim that your origina= l > works are open source software unless your Modified License has been > approved by Open Source Initiative (OSI) and You comply with its license > review and certification process.**** > > ** ** > > Most licenses nowadays omit declarations of license stewardship and don= =92t > even mention the ownership of future derivative versions. For example =96= and > this was the gist of the question on the Apache legal-discuss@ list =96 t= he > Apache License 2.0 says nothing about the right to create derivative > versions *of the license*. **** > > ** ** > > In this ambiguous situation, what is the default rule for derivative work= s > of open source licenses? My assertion is that all open source licenses ma= y > freely be copied or modified into different versions; permission from a > license steward is never necessary to do that because these are functiona= l > legal documents for which copyright protection is inappropriate. (In an > email at Apache, I characterized my copyright notice on my own licenses a= s > =93chutzpah=94.) Without OSI approval, however, nobody responsible will c= all > the modified license an =93open source license=94. **** > > ** ** > > Do you agree?**** > > ** ** > > /Larry**** > > ** ** > > Lawrence Rosen**** > > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)**** > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482**** > > Office: 707-485-1242**** > > ** ** > --=20 NS --90e6ba2120fdb7477104d7f5d71e Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Larry,

Did you get a response to = this?

Best,


On 3 October 2012 20:44, Law= rence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

A recent thread on the legal-discuss@ li= st at Apache asked whether someone could take the Apache License 2.0 and re= vise it for their own purposes. After a side trip I took into the esoteric = question about whether a copyright license could itself be copyrighted, I b= ring the discussion to this license-discuss@ list at OSI along with a bit o= f history. (I=92m copying the legal-discuss@apache list only for closing th= e circle.)

=A0

In the o= lden days, open source licenses usually contained a copyright statement and= the identification of a =93license steward=94. This person or organization= (e.g., RMS/FSF for the GPL licenses; IBM for the CPL; and Mitchell Baker a= t what was then the Mozilla Project for the MPL) reputedly had exclusive co= ntrol over future license versions. Indeed, Mitchell took offense at that t= ime because, without her permission, I had revised the MPL license into a v= ersion I thought was easier to read and understand (the Jabber license, sin= ce deprecated).

=A0

Whether = or not the license steward role was legally significant, it certainly raise= d control issues in the community and created animosity over license langua= ge purity even where personal offense was not intended. Even though the goa= l was to change the license for some presumably good legal effect, some peo= ple still took offense when their =93own=94 words were changed.

=A0

When I r= eleased the AFL/OSL licenses in early drafts, I omitted any declaration of = license steward but I asserted with a copyright notice that I was the autho= r of those licenses. Several people (including, I remember, Mitchell Baker)= complained that I was claiming control over a license that people might wa= nt to enhance or change. Nobody trusted that I personally (or my heirs) wou= ld forever have the good of the community at heart.

=A0

I agreed= with them. That was my incentive to write section 16 of those licenses, wh= ich declared authorship but disclaimed control over changes. This section 1= 6 also carefully prohibited what was then characterized as =93relicensing= =94 of existing works; declared that the name of the license was exclusive;= and reminded the world that only OSI could bless a revised license as =93o= pen source=94.

=A0

Here=92s= what section 16 of the OSL says:

<= u>=A0

16) M= odification of This License. This License is Copyright =A9 2005 Lawrence Ro= sen. Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or communicate this License= without modification. Nothing in this License permits You to modify this L= icense as applied to the Original Work or to Derivative Works. However, You= may modify the text of this License and copy, distribute or communicate yo= ur modified version (the "Modified License") and apply it to othe= r original works of authorship subject to the following conditions: (i) You= may not indicate in any way that your Modified License is the "Open S= oftware License" or "OSL" and you may not use those names in= the name of your Modified License; (ii) You must replace the notice specif= ied in the first paragraph above with the notice "Licensed under <i= nsert your license name here>" or with a notice of your own that is= not confusingly similar to the notice in this License; and (iii) You may n= ot claim that your original works are open source software unless your Modi= fied License has been approved by Open Source Initiative (OSI) and You comp= ly with its license review and certification process.

=A0

Most lic= enses nowadays omit declarations of license stewardship and don=92t even me= ntion the ownership of future derivative versions. For example =96 and this= was the gist of the question on the Apache legal-discuss@ list =96 the Apa= che License 2.0 says nothing about the right to create derivative versions = of the license.

=A0

In this = ambiguous situation, what is the default rule for derivative works of open = source licenses? My assertion is that all open source licenses may freely b= e copied or modified into different versions; permission from a license ste= ward is never necessary to do that because these are functional legal docum= ents for which copyright protection is inappropriate. (In an email at Apach= e, I characterized my copyright notice on my own licenses as =93chutzpah=94= .) Without OSI approval, however, nobody responsible will call the modified= license an =93open source license=94.

=A0

Do you a= gree?

=A0

/Larry

=A0=

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag= , a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd.,= Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

=A0

=


--
NS
--90e6ba2120fdb7477104d7f5d71e--