www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Luis (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-167) Move CC-BY to Category B
Date Mon, 10 Jun 2013 03:46:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13679282#comment-13679282

Luis commented on LEGAL-167:

"reverse engineering to access licensed open source components is now allowed under the copyright
laws of most countries anyway regardless of what app stores say"

The license specifically refers to "technological protection measures that restrict ... [the]
exercise the rights granted ... under the terms of the License". The "rights granted... under
the terms of the License" include copying and distribution, and all DMCA-style laws (and most
TPM implementations) quite explicitly restrict those rights. So my read of this is that applying
any garden-variety TPM, and the laws that back it up, would be a violation of this clause.
I'm not sure what effect one exception (reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability)
has on this interpretation. But maybe I'm missing something; this is certainly not something
I address on a regular basis.

This reminds me of something else: the license also prohibits "impos[ing] any terms on the
Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License". My understanding
is that it is fairly common practice for Apache-based software to come with separate terms
of use that prohibit additional copying and distribution. Again, that looks, on its face,
like a violation of this requirement.

It might provide useful context to explain what Mozilla means when it says a license is compatible.
Slightly oversimplified, we mean that if you meet the requirements of the MPL, you will have
also met the requirements of the other underlying licenses.[1] That does not appear to be
the outcome here: fairly common behaviors (using Apache code in an app store, adding a proprietary
license that restricts redistribution) will meet the requirements of the Apache license, but
result in a violation of the underlying CC-BY license. That to me seems like a problem.

[1] I simplify here in part because a fuller, more formal analysis might not be appropriate
for Apache- it might be good enough for Apache's purpose if Apache License-*like* attribution
practices (but not exactly the same practices) would be sufficient.
> Move CC-BY to Category B
> ------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-167
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Sam Ruby
>            Assignee: Sam Ruby
> Summary:
> Careful reading recent versions of the CC-By licenses identify restrictions that are
not highlighted on the creativecommons summary page for this license.  These restrictions
go beyond what is required by the Apache License, Version 2.0, and furthermore has been deemed
incompatible with GPL.  We also have input that this is problematic for proprietary (non-open
source) usages.
> In the ensuing discussion, we have had questions concerning the necessity for certain
terms in our license, questions concerning the viability of the existing categorization of
licenses (A, B, X), questions concerning the validity of legal interpretations of our licensees.
> All these are valid questions, and can be pursued separately.  Meanwhile we need something
until at least one of those efforts are resolved.  My proposal remains that CC-BY licenses
be moved to Category B as a stop-gap solution.  Such a change would not prevent existing projects
from continuing to include such unmodified artifacts in their releases, it merely would require
them to conspicuously state that they did so to allow downsteam consumers to make an informed
decision.  Nor would it completely prevent modifications of such content, instead it would
require separate approval to do so.
> Partial list of relevant prior discussion (feel free to point to more in additional comments):
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8FJmnE21QcS_eP5SnvbLMgp4eKYvT13qEXALJafdoFO_A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C01f301ce5829%24aed32660%240c797320%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8HB%2Bj2H1J_WMH1D%3DfQf%2BuG5QE0brv7Fi1%2B1XozKEf%3Dn8Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3COFCAE2B77A.4DC34960-ON85257B75.006149FE-85257B75.0061C5FF%40us.ibm.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8FDjKbuzr3Mcns1Xwneydc-fGp6C7ZJ_nY9vvJ4p8LANA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C063201ce5bdc%2401a730b0%2404f59210%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201306.mbox/%3C152301ce6267%24ff57f0f0%24fe07d2d0%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8Gvzy%3DN-ezZY%3DOW5XxEp%2B4W%3D%2B7E%2B9fpZWcsxQU%2BjQjXog%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C06ca01ce5c08%24f8627960%24e9276c20%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3COF7C4060BB.133DE47E-ON85257B7A.0009A3AC-85257B7A.000C0686%40us.ibm.com%3E

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

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

View raw message