Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:59:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Lawrence Rosen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12671610.1380644655180.1273.1380736782058@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12671610.1380644655180@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12671610.1380644655180@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-179) Include CC-BY as an Apache-approved
 third party license
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-179?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13784217#comment-13784217 ] 

Lawrence Rosen commented on LEGAL-179:
--------------------------------------

Shane,

You're worried about our obligation to remove CC-BY notices from Apache's derivative works in (e.g.) the Apache Attic.

As I read it, Apache's obligation under CC-BY section 4.1 is to remove -- upon request -- attribution notices from our /current/ derivative works if the original author wishes to disassociate herself from those derivative works. 

However, I don't read section 4.1 as a perpetual obligation to remove old notices from software we no longer distribute -- even if copies of it remain in our archives or are widely distributed on the web. That would not be /practical/ for Apache, as your note plainly suggests. As I responded earlier to Henri, "we'll certainly have no obligation ourselves to reconstruct or correct that history...." 

So while the CC-BY contributor (in this case W3C) could force us to remove references to the W3C specification from our NOTICE file in /current/ software releases, it would not be /practical/ for us to modify past releases. That sounds reasonable to me.

I believe this CC-BY section 4.1 is also a reasonable condition that we should someday consider for our own Apache license. For example, it might make your enforcement of our trademarks much easier if we could force the removal of Apache notices from downstream derivative works that misrepresent our Foundation's relationship with them.

/Larry

> Include CC-BY as an Apache-approved third party license
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-179
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-179
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Lawrence Rosen
>
> W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee has just approved the use of CC-BY as the license for the HTML Working Group and as an experiment to determine whether to use that license for other W3C specifications. Since Apache members participate in HTML development and use that W3C specification in our projects, we should add CC-BY to the Apache list of approved third-party licenses.
> /Larry
> ********** Here is what the W3C announcement said:
> "Based on extensive discussions, the Director has decided to pursue the experiment with CC-BY. The Director's view is that:
>    * Despite concerns from some developers that it is not sufficiently
>      liberal, CC-BY satisfies the key requirement of permitting the
>      creation of derivative works.
>    * A license with no attribution requirement, such as CC0, would
>      not support other important W3C and community aims, as it could
>      contribute to confusion rather than interoperability of the Web
>      platform.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

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