www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:56:12 GMT
 > Apache PMCs are just as lazy as all the rest of us

as sometimes are W3C Working Groups :-)

W3C have a number of different licenses:

* W3C Software License is listed as category A. [1]
* W3C Document License [2]
* W3C Test Suite License [3]

[2] and [3] are not open source licenses because they do not allow 
modifications or derivative works, and that is by design.  It's kind of 
the point for a standard with conformance criteria; (I don't know why 
that's not managed through controlling the use of the spec name).

Where I have been involved recently, tests are dual licensed, sofware 
and test suite licenses, which makes using test suites at ASF get 
covered by category A.

What matters to a PMC is what material, if any, is taken from the 
specification document into the software and how that is done.

	Andy

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html


On 30/10/13 01:06, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> As for LEGAL-179; Apache PMCs are just as lazy as all the rest of us. If
> they see a specification with this dual licensing set up, and W3C
> Document License is on the "Ok list", they won't raise any request about
> it. My question then is; Will that project's choice of W3C Document
> License propagate to downstream users, or will such downstream users be
> able to claim CC-BY for the specification combined with the ALv2 of the
> code itself??
> If so, then really, there is no problem at this point. If not, then
> really, there should at least be an inventory of whether any project is,
> or will soon be, affected.
>
> -- Niclas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Apache Members,____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list
>     unreasonably to argue that board officers are not acting
>     appropriately regarding certain legal issues:____
>
>     __ __
>
>      > Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list.  I
>     suggest we ____
>
>      > all decline to respond further.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     I will honor their request, but instead I will take this to
>     legal-discuss@ (a public list) and members@ (an internal list). ____
>
>     __ __
>
>     In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to
>     respond to:____
>
>     I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy"
>     that Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third
>     party license issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several
>     previous JIRA issues. "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal
>     Affairs decided". You should quit inventing policy as you go along.____
>
>     Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for
>     these actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that
>     officer's actual role described, certainly not in any way that would
>     provide written guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like
>     to see something consistent with our mission statement: "The
>     Foundation provides an established framework for intellectual
>     property...."____
>
>     __ __
>
>     By the way, I've changed the topic of this thread. After this
>     brouhaha in Apache, W3C is quietly withdrawing its efforts to
>     experiment with CC-BY. Their representatives have advised me to give
>     up the fight. :-) Someone must have won this battle! But Apache
>     keeps losing, because we still refuse all attempts to lead the FOSS
>     world in defining what our Third Party Licensing Policy ought to be.
>     Our VP of Legal Affairs insists that the "policy" is to sit back and
>     wait until a project asks about a license, then approve or
>     disapprove the license based on ad hoc rules but no intelligible
>     written principles or guidelines. ____
>
>     __ __
>
>     For those of you who have written me publicly or privately begging
>     me to stop bothering you about this topic because you want to get
>     back to programming, sorry but no. Next year will mark my 20th year
>     as an attorney working in support of FOSS. I assume that my
>     leadership on these issues was why I was elected as a member of The
>     Apache Software Foundation in the first place. Telling me to shut up
>     about intellectual property issues of open source and open standards
>     is like cheating me of oxygen. I won't let it happen.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     /Larry____
>
>     __ __
>
>     P.S. I recognize that I won't get many /public/ statements of
>     support for this email. But please, those of you who have the
>     courage to do so, please write me privately with your comments. Pro
>     or con, it will help me resist this plea from board members that I
>     should "shut up" about legal issues.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Lawrence Rosen____
>
>     Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com
>     <http://www.rosenlaw.com/>)____
>
>     3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482____
>
>     Office: 707-485-1242____
>
>     Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu____
>
>     __ __
>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> 河南南路555弄15号1901室。
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug


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


Mime
View raw message