www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Date Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:32:34 GMT
I promised to send this link to the list: 



I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is
worth thinking seriously about. :-) 




Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/>

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile:  <http://linkd.in/XXpHyu> http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 


From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis@tieguy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:37 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons


Thanks for the heads up, Larry. I subscribe to the list, actually, but have
not been following this thread.


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

Hi Luis,


I named you in an email I wrote to Apache legal-discuss@ list. Since this
isn't a private Apache list I have no problem copying you on what I wrote. 






From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen

Subject: RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution


Larry Rosen wrote:

> > I mean only that the original work 
> > remains available to others under the same terms under which you 
> > received that code (from the original licensor and, if you are nice,
> > from you too). 

Jeffrey Thompson responded: 
> I agree that someone distributing Apache code under a 

> different license doesn't negate the rights still 

> available from the original authors.

Sam Ruby wrote:

> There is code at the ASF that others have incorporated and have released

>  various versions of GPL licenses.  And others have have released under 

> proprietary (non-open source) licenses.  Of course, these actions don't

> people who desire access to the original source to get such from the

> source -- namely us.


I agree with that much.


As I responded to Jeffrey about CC-BY, I was talking about contributions we
incorporate into Apache software and then distribute to our licensees. This
was in the context of a suggestion that we remove CC-BY from Category A of
our list of allowed licenses at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.


To repeat what most of you already know, all copyrighted works that Apache
incorporates into our projects remain under their original licenses. We
(ASF) do not have the right to change those licenses. We only have the right
(collectively) to distribute our derivative and collective works
incorporating those original works to our public under an ASF copyright. We
only own the copyright in the derivative or collective work and we can
control that work with the Apache License - but we don't own or control the
copyright in the components. See 17 USC 103(b). [I assume nobody assigns
their copyrights to ASF, which is a different legal construct.]


In that context, I question the very rationale for the Category A and B
licenses that we list. 


Those licenses we do approve in Category A have some interesting conditions
that I bet we and our downstream users don't always satisfy. Listed at the
end of this email are some examples of conditions in one or more of those
approved Category A licenses. We do, of course, say this: "Many of these
licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for
example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. Ensure you are doing
this when including these works." (I added the underlining to point out that
the attribution portion of CC-BY must have been analyzed previously by
someone here at Apache! Why are we doing it again?)


I suggest that the conditions in CC-BY are not substantially more onerous
than the ones we do accept, although perhaps we ought to talk with our
friends at Creative Commons to get them to simplify their attribution
license. I note also that Luis Villa intends to blog his own feedback on
CC-BY because he sees some problems with it for use at W3C that we haven't
even talked about here. I'll forward that link when I receive it from him.


I'm not suggesting that we like CC-BY, only that the rationale by which we
determine whether to list it is incomplete and inconsistent.


Worse yet, the conditions in all those approved Category A licenses apply to
our downstream Apache licensees as well. We (ASF) can't change those
existing licenses. Anyone who intends to take an Apache work and modify it
had better read all the licenses that apply to it. Are our NOTICE files
up-to-date with respect to these components in our software?


If we only want licenses in Category A that don't have conditions that
affect us or our licensees, we had better purge that list! 


I also suggest that we're being both under-inclusive and over-inclusive on
our Category A list. The GPL is an example of a license that we refuse to
include in our Apache software, so we reject it for Category A. The reason
for this has nothing to do with its conditions, since we can avoid the
consequences of that license simply by not distributing derivative works of
GPL software. We reject the GPL because we want to honor the legal
interpretation of "derivative works by linking" promulgated by the FSF, not
because we agree with that rationale. See


So I hope someone can explain more clearly the rationale for Category A so
we can unambiguously evaluate licenses.




******** text copied from Category A licenses listed at


(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in
the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you
may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this
license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license
that complies with this license.




provided, however, that the BeOpen Python License is retained in the
Software, alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee.




.         Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

.         Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.



The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the
redistributed or derivative work.


2. Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms and
conditions. If none exist, a short notice of the following form (hypertext
is preferred, text is permitted) should be used within the body of any
redistributed or derivative code: "Copyright C [$date-of-software] World
Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut
National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University).
All Rights Reserved. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/"

3. Notice of any changes or modifications to the W3C files, including the
date changes were made. (We recommend you provide URIs to the location from
which the code is derived.)


View raw message